Submitted by Georgie Porgie
Any truly valid interpretation of Scripture must be based upon sound rules. These rules must then be applied consistently. The following are the most basic rules we attempt to always follow in our interpretation of Scripture. We do not feel at liberty to discard these rules when they lead us to a conclusion in contradiction to what ‘orthodoxy’ has taught us. We instead endeavour to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and believe by faith whatever conclusions they may lead us to.
I It will be assumed that the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 Books of the New Testament are the wholly inspired Word of God. “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim 3:17.
II The Bible itself will always be used to define its own terminology, symbols, etc. No appeal will be made to any man-made dogma, theory, or writing, such as the apocrypha or psudopygrypha, to explain Biblical terms which are already clearly defined within the Bible itself.
III The proper interpretation of any given passage will be determined, not only by that with which it stands immediately connected, but by considering all scriptures which have bearing upon the subject throughout the entire Bible . The truth of any given subject can only be determined by bringing together all scripture which sheds light on that subject.
IV Every passage will be given as literal an interpretation as possible, unless such a literal interpretation would render the meaning absurd, or bring it into disagreement with other passages which speak in positive language.
V No interpretation will be given to any scripture beyond what the fair meaning of the text itself allows. For Example: Carcass cannot in any case be interpreted to mean immortal soul burning in hell.
VI All passages belonging to any particular subject must contain one or more of the peculiar features of that subject, by which it may be identified as belonging to that subject.
VII The truth of any doctrine must be determined firstly by those passages which speak in clear and positive language, and not those which are symbolic or parabolic in nature. No inference should be drawn from any symbolic or parabolic passage which would bring the passage into contradiction with those which speak unequivocally on the same subject.
VIII No doctrine will be derived based on a single passage of scripture, a mere inference, or an argument from silence. Any true doctrine will found throughout the entire Bible.
Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture
1. Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.
2. Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.
3. When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.
4. Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.
5. Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.
6. The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfilment. Both complement each other.
7. For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words “allos” and “heteros”. Both are usually translated as “another” in English – yet “allos” literally means “another of the same type” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.”
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: “…for there be gods many and lords many…” as a “proof text” of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods “so-called”), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote – without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter’s own culture or society – then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
“What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge’s chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Saviour.
Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)
Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as “the art of finding the meaning of an author’s words and phrases, and of explaining it to others.” When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:
• Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
• Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
• Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
• Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
• Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
• Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
• See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
• Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.
These are all proven study methods and good guidelines of interpretation. Here are some other additional factors of correct Biblical hermeneutics?
1. Spiritual Perception Over Intellectual Understanding
The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14). Jesus Himself confirmed that Biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment. He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
This being the case, it is also reasonable to conclude that if a person who wants to interpret Scripture has sinful habits or practices in his life that grieve the Holy Spirit and quench His power, the Holy Spirit will not reveal the truth of Scripture to such a person. In fact, God warns that such individuals will take Scripture out of context to their own destruction. (See II Peter 3:16.) This result supports the axiom that a man’s morality will dictate his theology and his philosophy.
2. God’s Revelation Over Human Reasoning
In the final analysis, accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). They later recalled, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scholars of Jesus’ day carried out heated debates over the correct interpretation of Scripture, but Jesus counselled them to search the Scriptures on the basis that they testified of Him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).
3. Genuine Love Rather Than Justification of Selfishness
Since the Scriptures reveal the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, it also follows that the primary theme of the Bible is the love of God and how we are to live out His love in our daily words and actions.
When a clever lawyer tried to involve Jesus in a wordy battle, He began his forensic sparring with the question “Which is the greatest commandment?” The reply that Jesus gave is a profound principle for Biblical interpretation. All the Law and prophets are based on the command to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Therefore, we must interpret Scripture on the basis of how it teaches us to love God and to love others. Love is the theme of the Bible. All good character qualities are simply practical expressions of genuine love. When the Pharisees used the Law of Moses to justify their harsh and unloving treatment of wives, Jesus reproved them for hardness of heart and took them back to the Creation design of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for the rest of their lives.
The lawyer who tried to engage Jesus in debate then tried to justify himself by asking, “Who is my neighbour?” to which Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
4. Christ’s Commands Over Man’s Theology
Every interpretation of Scripture is based on some foundational structure of reasoning. Jesus provides the structure of truth in the commands that He gave to His disciples during His earthly ministry, and they are the guiding lights for correct Biblical interpretation. They clarify what was written in the Old Testament and are further explained in New Testament teaching. Jesus promises that if we keep His commands before our eyes, He will reveal more of Himself to us. This was the great goal of Paul: “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection” (Philippians 3:10). Jesus further promises, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31–32).
It is customary for a Bible scholar to base his interpretation of a passage on the theological position that he has accepted. The problem with this approach is that no theological system is totally without some human error, because it is not inspired. It is man’s explanation of Biblical truth.
This is not to say that theology is unimportant. Wrong doctrine leads to wrong behaviour. No one was more concerned about false doctrine than the Apostle Paul. He maintained a continual battle against false teaching. However, he did not base sound doctrine on the theological views of his day but on the words of Jesus Christ and that which leads to Christ like living.
He explains this in his epistle to Timothy. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Timothy 6:3–5).
5. One Interpretation and Many Applications
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. However, there can be many applications. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides us not only to the right interpretation of a passage but also to the precise application of Scripture to our daily lives. If our lives are in harmony with the Lord, we can expect the Holy Spirit to illuminate certain passages of Scripture for our personal application. When this happens, it is God giving us a “rhema” of Scripture.
In the New Testament, the Word of God is generally referred to by the Greek word logos. Jesus is identified as the Living Word (logos). However, there are many references that use the Greek word rhema to define the Word of God. A rhema is a precise direction of Scripture for a particular person or circumstance. When Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the other side of the boat, Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5). Jesus did not tell every one to cast their nets on the other side of the boat—only Peter.
It is on the point of the Holy Spirit applying a passage of Scripture to a decision that critics often rise up and claim that this is not acceptable hermeneutics. Their quarrel is not with believers who know in their spirits that God is directing them by the witness of two or three rhemas, but with the Holy Spirit Who confirms the application of rhemas.
Jesus used rhemas in overcoming Satan’s temptations, and one of the passages He used affirms rhemas. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
6. Correct Divisions of Truth Versus Truth Out of Balance
Paul gave Timothy wise instruction in hermeneutics when he wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
Scripture is a living, powerful instrument in the hand of God. It functions on what appears to us to be paradoxes. In a similar fashion, the muscles in our bodies are only able to function by opposing tensions.
On the one hand, Scripture presents the Law of God, but then it contrasts this with the grace of God. Scripture teaches the need for justice, but then it counters this with mercy. We are told to cease from our own labour and enter the rest that is in Christ. At the same time, we are commanded to work for the night is coming when no man can work and to labour for the Lord. We have freedom in Christ. However, we are to make ourselves servants to all people.
If we emphasize only one side of God’s Biblical equation, we can certainly support it with verses of Scripture, but we will come out with the wrong answer. Truth out of balance leads to heresy. For example, if we emphasize the “rest” that a believer has and fail to give equal and primary emphasis to the “labour” of a believer, we will view any emphasis on working for the Lord as legalism.
Paul put labour and rest together when he wrote, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Hebrews 4:9–11). Similarly, there is certainly freedom in Christ. However, if we focus on freedom, we will react to God-ordained authority as being oppressive and cultish.
Proper hermeneutics requires diligent use of all the above factors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Avoid Scripture Twisting: Eight Basic Rules Of Bible Interpretation
1. Begin with what the passage says, but always ask, “What does the passage mean?”, not what it “says.”
2. Pay attention to the Greek and Hebrew, (For those without language training, an interlinear Bible used in conjunction with a Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or Expository Dictionary of Bible Words is recommended).
3. Remember the context. Read verses in the context of the whole passage, the chapter and even the book. Finally, keep in mind the larger context of the New Testament or Old Testament.
4. The Bible is progressive revelation. This means that, generally, the New Testament specifically interprets the Old Testament.
5. Always interpret the incidental passage by the systematic teachings of that topic; consider all the passages dealing with the topic, A good topical Bible is a useful aid (e.g. Nave’s Topical Bible).
6. Interpret the unclear passages by the clear ones. A favourite ploy of the cults is to choose a difficult passage and build their unique doctrines on it.
7. Beware of novel interpretations, check various conservative commentaries on the passage. There is very little new under the sun. Many of the heresies of the cults have been dealt with thoroughly. Even though there are many Christian denominations, it is interesting that on the essential doctrines there is solid agreement. Always go beyond what the passage is saying to get at its intended meaning. Cult leaders are expert in isolating passages and imposing their interpretation on it.
8. Come to Scripture prayerfully, submitting to be taught by the Holy Spirit, allowing the Scripture to interpret itself and not be clouded by personal doctrinal presuppositions.
1. Pray! Pray! Pray! The Holy Spirit knows better then you do!
2. Always know what the verse actually says, not what you think you remember it saying
3. Take the verse in literary context, don’t just read what you want to read to prove your point and don’t forget the Bible is a mosaic of different kinds of literature meant to be read different ways.
4. Take the verse in cultural context, just like you saying “it’s raining cats and dogs” is not what you literally meant
5. Remember the Bible is a whole 66 books! Interpret all verses in relation the other 1000’s of verses
6. Check the other translations, The variations are complimentary and show the whole picture
7. The Bible was not originally written in English, go back to the sources
8. Theological presuppositions are bad, scripture determines doctrine, not the other way around
9. Check the Theologians’ opinions, The Ph.D, professor of heart surgery of Harvard is better then your uncle Ted’s heart removal service. Professional opinions matter! (but don’t assume they’re always right)
10. Assume nothing, be ready to learn, don’t give up. Remember, only God knows everything.
561 responses to “Hermeneutics And Exegesis”
@ GP
And so you say, so YOU say!!
Mr Porgie,
I believe you addressed me directly, sir. Please do me the honour of allowing a response. Thank you.
And thanks also for your own response, Mr. Porgie. You made me smile.
I see that we’re going to have to take this one by one. It’s going to be more than boring for anybody else reading this thread, but dunces are my weakness, debate is always good, and debating with comical charlatan dunces is an opportunity never to be missed. Never.
So let’s take it one by one.
Pastor Porgie says: “I don’t come on BU to push anything”.
If that’s true, why did you come on BU with a 4,000-word rant (to be honest, it was 3,910 words) to, demonstrably, push something?
Pastor Porgie says: “You can accept or reject what I say”.
Thanks. I’d taken that as a given. I’d assumed I didn’t need your permission. But thanks for your permission anyway. Perhaps the “pupils” in your [cough] “bible classes” need your permission for many things. Please do not confuse me with them. Thanks.
Pastor Porgie says: “You can post music and any other thing. You can call for my banning. You can call me names.”
Yes, I can. But I didn’t do anything like any of that. Very strange that you should even mention it, what with you being a master of reading and interpretation and so on. Very curious. It raises questions.
Pastor Porgie says: “I don’t have to defend anything. And I don’t have to answer any question that is not important to me.”
Irrefutably true. Not, however, a good attitude for a teacher in any field of human endeavour. In fact, for a teacher (and you’re a teacher, right? Of Bible classes?), just about the absolutely worst conceivable attitude for someone in your profession. Teachers who don’t answer questions that are “not important to them”. Now, there’s a thought. Are you sure, Pastor Porgie, that teaching is really your vocation? I’ve never met any teacher with such a craven attitude.
Pastor Porgie says: “I can only tell how I was taught and how I learned”, which, for a “teacher” is just about the saddest statement I have ever read.
Pastor Porgie says: “Now silly, stupid, and puerile are insulting”. Yes, they are insulting. They are insulting words. We are agreed on that. Why, then, did you use those words when you spoke to someone else on this very thread? More importantly, why did you insult someone on this thread when you had begun your remarks by indicating that you would not be insulting? You were insulting. You said that you would not be insulting. You are a hypocrite and you owe an apology. Not to me; to the person you hypocritically insulted in a public forum.
Pastor Porgie says: “the likes of you have never appeared in one of my Bible classes. You see, Sir , I don’t teach Bible classes for milk drinkers Sir. I teach Bible classes for meat eaters!”
Here, there’s so much to deal with in Pastor Porgie’s statement that I’m not sure where to start. Perhaps I should start at the end, with that exclamation mark. “I teach Bible classes for meat eaters!” For the moment, ignore the wonderfully comic adolescent bravado of the statement itself, and focus on that exclamation mark. Think about why Pastor Porgie put that exclamation mark at the end of his sentence. Does it make the sentence easier to understand? Does it make the sentence funnier, or more forceful, or more persuasive? What is it doing?
Apart from that, is it good to know that Pastor Porgie doesn’t teach “milk drinkers”? What, exactly, is a “milk drinker”? I drink milk. Do you drink milk? Perhaps Pastor Porgie can exegtete his own tastes on the lactic front.
My own conclusion: Pastor Porgie is, obviously, a deeply unfunny joke. An idiot charlatan peddling nonsense for the gullible. By the way, Pastor Porgie, that really was an insult. You accused me above of “calling you names”, which I’ve never done (you can read, right?), but that really was meant as an insult to you and your comical charlatanism.
Best wishes to you, sir. May your god go with you, and may you always be well.
@the hood, Man, you are truly a Mormon, wresting the Word of God, as you always DO, completely out of CONTEXT, as GP so righty pointed out.
This discourse has no bearing whatsoever upon what you are attempting to do, because Paul is speaking about those who ‘…suppress the truth in unrighteousness…”(v.18b) as the Mormons do with a FALSE gospel; and those who refuse to acknowledge Almighty God’s “…invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…” (v. 20b) and because of their wilfull IGNORANCE, “…they did not glorify Him as God…”(v.21a) And thus, “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (v.22) “AND CHANGED THE GLORY of the incorruptable God into an IMAGE made like corruptable man – and BIRDS and FOUR-FOOTED animals and creeping things” (v. 23) Rampant IDOLATRY, Paul then continues this discourse, through to verse 32, without which one cannot understand the specific CONTEXT, of verse 22. “Professing to be wise, they became FOOLS.”
This nonsense you have attempted to do, Mr. Hood, is precisely what lifting a verse out of *context* does!
Man, will you ever learn to ‘righty divide’ God’s Word? No, not as long as you are brainwashed by Mormonism!
@ Zoe….
Your second question, “Why did God create the devil?” I answered that question on another thread, I don’t remember which one it was, but, I remember giving you the Scriptures, that showed that God did NOT create the Devil, He created Lucifer, who rebelled and was cast down and became Satan, the Devil!
I remember giving you the Scriptures, that showed that God did NOT create the Devil,……………. He created Lucifer,……………………………….. who rebelled ……………………..and was cast down…………………….. and became Satan,………………………. the Devil.
You must really think we stupid !!
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?!?
the easiest explanation here is simple…. just look at it in reverse……The Devil, Satan…..before he was cast down….. had rebelled while he was Lucifer as … Created by God.
See where the confusion starts when certain questions asked, are answered with such ambiguity?
Mr. Technician responds to Pastor Zoe. Here’s Mr. Technician:
“Your second question, ‘Why did God create the devil?’ I answered that question on another thread, I don’t remember which one it was, but, I remember giving you the Scriptures, that showed that God did NOT create the Devil, He created Lucifer, who rebelled and was cast down and became Satan, the Devil! I remember giving you the Scriptures, that showed that God did NOT create the Devil”.
Nice. Mr. Technician: do you remember now where that appears in any scripture? You have said twice that you gave the scripture. Can you give it again? Can you look it up? Let me try to help. Even though you gave the scripture twice, the account does not appear in any scripture. Not one.
How can we account for this discrepancy? Could it be, say, idiocy on your part?
All best wishes to you.
@BT
Thanks for your plaudit 🙂
Earlier Chris asked why does BU post so many religious blogs. What has been happening on BU is that the comments on the religious blogs are the most active and therefore that illusion is created in the eyes of Chris and maybe others.
Religion whether we are believers or not guides the way we live our lives, our laws, everything. We can’t solve many of the world’s problems unless we understand the influence of religion. BU from its inception have posted blogs on the role of the church and religion.
Our biggest regret is the rhetoric which has clouded how we exchange views on the topic of religion. We still operate in hope that the rhetoric will abate at some point.
First I have never been and am not now a pastor.
As a Biochem teacher in Medical school I have had 100 % passes with a good percentage of A’s, despite being very strict! OK I have had a Pre Med class in Organic Chem do the same exam as the MD 2 Biochem class and scored higher than the seniors on the same test. OK
Zoe can you explain to this Bible novitiate what a “milk drinker” and “a meat eater is” citing relevant Petrine and Pauline scriptures.
A topic was raised at the start of the blog, and dismissed as nonsense. So far only David has asked a reasonable question pertaining to the topic that would merit an answer.
It has become fashionable on BU to bash those of us that believe and teach Bible. We have been laughed to scorn at for mentioning exegesis and hermeneutics, and yet we see posters attempting to exegete and interpret with out realoizing that they are trying to exegete and use hermenetics.
It is hilariuous!
You all laugh at Dictionary when he made his proposals on Haiti. But at least the man had some sort of methodology, based on his education and past experience, but perhaps also on a life time of seeing his action and hearing his father’s colleagues discuss the affairs of the region in his home. Having heard of his father from his colleagues, and the esteem ion which he was held at a certain regional institution which I will not name, I can appreciate his words work and worth. But he has been mocked for being who he is. A bright young man who also happens to believe the Bible.
Zoe might lose his temper, but he knows the Word, and has obviously been well read and trained. And you Bible illiterates laugh himto scorn. Hilarious.
Some of you even sought to take me on on matters of Biochem. Hilarious. And even on Methods of Bible Study too. Ridiculous.
ou talk about defending thesis.
Scholars defend thier thesis before other scholars in thier field. Men who are their superiors in their field.
Like when I faced Prof Bras in my Pathology oral as a Medical student, and they handed me a specimen of the liver. Here was I, a Pathology novice standing before a man whose name is enshrined in the texts for hgis discovey of venoocclusibve disease of the liver.
Defending is like when I a Bdos Exhibitioner stood before certain emminent Barbados scholars infinal medical exams or in a grand round……………..not when jokers attack me on BU on areas of Theology about which I am very knowledegeable.
Hilarious!
@ Hants
It is clear that you are more comfortable discussing religion with those who are “qualified”. “doctors, lawyers and other well educated men”.
There are some on this blog who fall into that category.
Others, myself included do not and find your Hermeneutics And Exegesis too “complicated” but your medical articles were helpful and appreciated.
Hants it is true that currently there are very well educated men in Bible classes that I teach. But not all are highly educated. Yet all are meat eaters!
In other words they have read and studied the Word from childhood. Have listened to soud teaching and preaching of the Word, and read the books that tend to be cited in the books and commentaries of the great men of the faith.
Hants I just finished my O levels when I realy started to study the Word for myself.
My first teachers was a man who worked at the foundry, a primary school teacher a few years my senior, and two men that went to class 7 at St Lawrence boys, a Senior Civil servant fromn St Vincent. We were given little booklets to read by Dehaan – Our Daily Bread, and milk drinkers materials by Homer Duncan John R Rice etc
We went to Baptism class reading a book by Keith L brooks on the doctines of salvation and some other booklets on this subject. For five years we went verse by verse and chapter by chapter and book by book as needed from Genesis to Nehemish in Sunday School class using Henrietta Mears book Going Throgh the OT.
Then someone gave me some bookslets by RB Thieme who was a Hebrew and Greek scholar, who taught and exegeted just like Zoe does.
I went to Jamaica to study and heard J Vernon McGee and Theodire Epp etc and ordered and read thier literature. I was then introduced to Pink, and listened to grat preaching.
Bit by bit over 42 years I engaged in this as my pleasure and past time. It has nothing to do with edcation and brightness man. I did what I enjoyed and I learned from men considered to be the BEST BY THIER PEERS.
You can do it too. All you need is the Spirit and an understanding of English Comprehension. Check the “rules: You will find that they are very simple to follow. Uneducated folk have done so for years…. and are still doing so.
Its easier than Physics Maths Medicine etc
Having began your bashing of Zoe and GP in earnest, can anyone see any merit in any of the “rules” that Bible teachers and scholars find useful in interpreting the Bible?
Can any of you so very smart folk get back on topic?
By the way was BT not inpolite also to say that GP’s post is nonsense. Has he really shown that the post is a contradiction to the Bible? You mean the whole 4000 thousand words as counted by you know who are all nonsense?
Would GP by any chance be referring to 1 Peter 2:2 when he spoke of milk drinkers? I looked it up in a concordance LOL What about Hebrews 5:12-13 or 1 Cor 3:2?
GP it seems that a concordance is indeed very useful
Thanks for the lesson!
Conscious Sounds.
Jah Bible
Psalms
GP:
I was asked to take a look at this thread.
I find, on a first look, that while you have admirably outlined consensual evangelical exegesis, you have not placed it in the context of the clashing worldviews that make such an endeavour controversial in our day.
(BTW, the first anonymous commenter is apparently unaware that it was largely the antecedents of todays evangelicals, the dissenters, who — largely on following the approaches to interpretation outlined above — realised that the Biblical faith and the institution of slavery as it had developed based on kidnapping in Africa, transportation of the kidnapped tot he coast t and thence across the Atlantic under inhuman conditions, and chattel slavery in the new world, were immoral relative tot he core moral principles of a Christian civilisation. They then targetted the low-hanging fruit — the kidnapping based trade as the root of the problem [such kidnapping into slavery has an OT death sentence under the law of Moses, and in the NT, it is specifically stated to be contrary to sound doctrine . . . . as a test see how many of us can give the references (see the problem why in a culture with Christian influence, evils contrary to sound doctrine can thrive with but little objection, once the power classes can gain from the evils and are able to take revenge against those who object? Cf. here, on the current wave of evil to homosexualise marriage and many other things . . . )], seeing that once it was cut, the institution should die out. Then, when that did not happen fast enough, they switched focus to the outright urgent abolition of slavery. culminating in the walk across England by William Knibb who told “the Christian people of England” what “their brethren” were suffering in the Caribbean. His testimony not only on incidents but on the state of the law and courts etc in Jamaica especially, could not be confuted, as he was an eyewitness who had done the research right there [indeed the authorities had tried to hang him with other dissenter missionaries when the 1831 rebellion broke out, against their advice. And it was another Evangelical, Buxton, who took up the torch from the fast-fading Wilberforce (also an evangelical) and shepherded through the abolition act in 1833. This same Buxton tried to abolish the death penalty in England in the early C19, and failed, but got the number of hanging offenses down from 200+ to I think it was 8. But, our Marxism dominated history of the last generation finds it hard to acknowledge such facts and their import.]
And so, the first issue that needs to be resolved is the point raised by Peter in 1 Peter 3:15, noting again the importance of civility as underscored in v 16:
Now, in steps:
1 –> First, we must understand the importance of the art and science of interpreting text correctly. For instance, consider a headline my mom once read out to the listening adults in Bull Sav, S E St Elizabeth the 1940’s: “Russians’ push bottles up 40,000 Germans.”
2 –> Immediately, we see that geography and history are important: we need to know about the countries of Russia and Germany and the history of the 1930’s and 40’s if we are to make sense of this event, which most likely took place in 1943 – 44, when the Russians went over tot he sustained offensive after the Nazi-led German invasion of June 22, 1941 that nearly captured Russia from the communist rulers. (And, contrary to popular understanding, a Nazi is a Nationalistic Socialist, i.e. a follower of a certain statist, politically messianistic ideology that is therefore LEFT of centre not right of centre politically.)
3 –> Immediately, as well, we can see that language is not always literal: Russians were not pushing Germans into glass bottles in a factory somewhere!
4 –> So, to read text properly, we have to understand the poetic side of language and how to infer from a figure of speech (here several metaphors) to its literal meaning: Russian soldiers, especially in artillery, infantry and armored units, with air support, had carried out a successful, relatively small scale deep penetration double envelopment offensive operation [similar in principle to their first major success, the Stalingrad counter-attacks of November 1942, which destroyed Paulus’ 6th army over the next several months and came within an ace of winning the war outright by cutting off the German Army Group South . . . ], and had surrounded 40,000 German troops; probably in or around a key town or road junction that Hitler would have ordered held at all costs.
5 –> At a subtler level, we are speaking of an incident where in Bull Sav, Jamaica, about 1944, my mom as a girl was reading in more or less standard, Gleaner Jamaican English to an audience for whom English was in effect a second language.
6 –> Thus, we see issues of explanation to audience in language they can understand, and using translations of original language sources. Here, the originals were plainly in Russian and possibly German, so the question of getting the sense from the original language with its vocabulary, grammar, contextual rules, idioms etc, into English that makes idiomatic sense ands is sufficiently simple to be read out to largely illiterate peasant farmers in Bull Sav St Elizabeth, jump out. (It helps to know that a decade later, my mother, now as a teacher graduate from Bethlehem Moravian college who had taught successfully in the Bull Savannah primary located in St Aidan’s Chapel of Ease, was employed by Kaiser Bauxite to teach pretty much the same men to read English. So they could work at Port Kaiser just down the road and/or at the mines.)
7 –> to help in addressing such challenges, we consult with experts, directly or indirectly through respected, credible works of reference on geography, history, language, culture etc.
8 –> And once we look at this more or less parallel case, much of the above immediately makes a lot of sense. GP is saying we need to read language in context, in light of the original language, in light of the type of writing it is: a letter is not a poem and a poem is not a historical narrative spanning decades — at least, not usually. And in the case of the Bible, we are reading texts originally written to and for peoples across 1500 years and several countries in the Mediterranean and Near East, from about 1400 BC to 100 AD. And in languages that are no longer commonly spoken: Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek influenced by the Septuagint translation of the OT c. 200 – 300 BC.
9 –> So the use of authoritative, scholarly references and consulting with experts is a no-brainer, if we are to make sense not nonsense, out of the texts.
10 –> In addition, GP is writing in the context that the writings are the prime source texts of a religion that has decisively shaped our culture across 2,000 years, Christianity. So, the core issue is that the claimed status of these words as the Word of god needs to be justified. for that, the pivotal issue is Jesus for the NT is based on his understanding of his role in light of the OT, and in turn his training and authorisation of certain men to be his representative spokesmen, the apostles.
11 –> The NT’s central claim is that he good news of Jesus is authenticated through his death, burial and resurrection with 500+ eyewitnesses and the poured out transforming power of the Spirit in the light of the promised s of the gospel, as is classically described in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, in light of precise predictive prophecies, in the OT, esp those of Isaiah 53, c. 700+ BC. [And, only God can so control history as to prohesy like that.]
12 –> So, the root challenge for those who would object is to address the focal issue of 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, in light of what Gary Habermas and others have identified as the cluster of core facts that are generally accepted by both conservative and the majority of skeptical scholars, e.g.:
13 –> On abductive inference to best explanation [the standard way of making sense out of empirical facts in logic and of seeing what is the warranted credible truth about the past etc], the historic, C1 NT contention that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, rose form death as triumphant Lord, with 500+ witnesses easily explains the above. BY CONTRAST NO SKEPTICAL THEORY IS CAPABLE OF EXPLAINING THE CLUSTER OF FACTS, OR EVEN KEY SUBSETS OF THEM. (Serious inquirers are invited to examine the discussion of this set of issues here.)
14 –> So, on inference to best explanation, we are entitled to conclude — no mind who may be inclined to indulge in selective hyperskeptical dismissals of one form or another [cf more in the just above linked] — that the core gospel is well warranted, and that he apostles and prophets are indeed authenticated spokesmen of God. On that strength, GP’s rules make a lot of sense.
15 –> But if one is committed to a different worldview, and especially if one has accepted certain errors as the truth, when one hears the real truth, it will seem like nonsense and foolishness. In short, there is none so blind as he who will not see.
16 –> That is why prayer to help us open our hearts and minds so that we will be open to corrective truth, and it is why taking time to examine the reasoning — logic — and evidence — facts — on a matter carefully in light of the principles of comparative difficulties analysis of alternative [world]views, is also so important.
G’day
Dictionary
PS: Hood, it is very plain that your basic problem is that your LDS beliefs cannot stand up to the simple exposure and scrutiny of key statements by founding leaders. You have therefore resorted to personalities and turnabout false accusations of those with whom you differ. Grow up man!
GP
My girl friend is a lawyer who grew up reading the Bible in a home where there were several of the books of which you speak. She asserts that she was also taught some of the rules you have mentioned i your post in her home and in her church.
She says that what you have posted here is really nothing new.
She taught me how to use the little concordance at the back of my Bible. She told me that many Bibles have these concordances of varying lengths, and told me that there are three main concordances used by teachers in her church group Crudens (for the crude she said) Young’s Analytical (for the young she said) and Strong’s (for the Strong!) I thought that was very funny.
She explained the connection of the verses about milk that I found in my “baby” concordance at the back of my Bible. She taught me that new converts are likened to mamalian neonates who initially use meat as thier primary food, until they eventuually are weaned off to eat meat. I acknowledged that I had indeed seen thispractice many times while watching Discovery Channel and Animal Channel shows on the big cats- my favorites.
She said that Peter was making an analogy to this in 1 Peter 2:2. She said that no one knows when a spiritual babe goes from being a “milk drinker” to a “meat eater” or when milk becomes meat because believers are studying the same material in and out.
Does this make any sense to you GP? Can you elaborate on this? CAn you “exegete” this verse for me so I can understand it more clearly. What I can see though is that on BU there are only three meat eaters, and many who bash them have not even yet started to digest milk yet.
Oh by the way GP do you know that hymn from the Prayer book that says WE KNOW THEE WHO THOU ART? For some strange reason last night when I read the nonsense writeen by “Adam Sherman” above I thought of that hymn. And I said to myself how come GP didnt realize who penned those nasty scathing remarks? After all GP has stopped responding to the thrash written by that “irritant”.
GP & Zoe & Dict keep teaching me about exegesis and hermeneutics, even if you make the “milk drinkers” unhappy. You are the man, man! You like DAn!
Guess what GP. One of your friends will now ask me ” Cant you think for yourself? My answer is NO NOT YET ON ALL THIS NEW BIBLE STUFF I AM STILL LEARNING A LOT FROM THE MEN FROM THE BAT CAVE!. ha ha ha ha
What Dictionary wrote this morning makes a lot of sense to me too.
Anon
It seems that your lawyer girlfriend is teaching you well.
Now you need a doctor friend to explain lactose intolerance and galactosemia. Then you can ask your lawyer friend to explain those two diseases in relationship to 1 Peter 2:2 and the phenomenon on BU. These diseases have to do with milk!
I will try to EXEGETE 1 Peter 2:2 for you later as that is A GOOD AND WORTHY QUESTION. LOL ROTFLLOL
@All… Channelling my inner Kiki….
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn4EMSoGrvI&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
@Technician, Re, “Why did God create the Devil?”
“The easiest explanation here is simple…just look at it in reverse…The Devil, Satan…before he was cast down…had rebelled while he was Lucifer…as Created by God.’
No, that will not wash man, as Almighty God HAS NEVER created ANYTHING, or being EVIL:
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’: for God CANNOT be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. EVERY good gift and every PERFECT gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there IS NO variation or shadow of turning.” (James 1: 13,17). Not only is God NOT responsible for human sin, He IS the absolute source of ALL GOOD:
“Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and CANST NOT look on iniquity: (Hab. 1:13a) “The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest ALL workers of INIQUITY.” (Psa. 5:5).
Almighty God Created Lucifer, which means ‘day star, son of the morning, or light bearer, he was created perfect:
“You were perfect in you ways from the day you were CREATED, *Till* INIQUITY was found in you.” (Ezek. 28: 15)
Lucifer was an anointed cherub in the heavenly sanctuary, he WAS the coverning Cherub placed by God to cover the throne. He WAS in the holy mountain (or kingdom) of God in the sides of the north (Ezek. 28: 14,16, with Psa. 48:1) He WAS perfect in the day he was created ( Ezek. 28:15). He WAS full of wisdom (Ezek. 28:12; with James 3: 15-16). He WAS perfect in beauty (Ezek 28: 12). Lucifer was decked with precious stones set in gold Ezek. 28:13) He was created with music in his being, apparently being the leader of heaven’s worship (Ezek. 28:13). He was once in truth. (John. 8:44)
This WAS the perfect manner in which Lucifer WAS CREATED by Almighty God, BEFORE, *PRIDE* entered him. Satan WAS once an angel called Lucifer, who in love with his own beauty, FELL into *PRIDE* and self-centeredness. His rebellion manifested five “I WILl” statements addressed against Almighty God, his creator.
“How you are fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground. You who weakened the nations. For you have said in your heart: I WILL ascend into heaven, I WILL exalt my throne above the stars of Godf: I WILL slso sit on the mount of the congregation, On the farthest sides of the north; I WILL ascend above the heights of the clouds, I WILL be like the Most High (Almighty God). You shall be brought DOWN to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
With FIVE utterances Lucifer declares he will take the place of the Most High God, but vv. 15-20 reveal that Almighty God has the last word, as the Most High, makes five responses, “Satan you will 1) be thrown into hell; 2) be gazed upon (that is, made a spectacle); 3) be talked about (mocked, scorned); 4) be cast out of your grave like a carcass; and 5) be alone. God’s ‘last word’ on Satan is still applicable to any challenge he attempts to bring against any of the people of God. (Jude 9/Luke 16: 22).
Lucifer’s Fall.
These pasages, alone with other helpful references, shows the cause of Satan’s fall and those that fell with him.
1. He was lifted up in *PRIDE* over his God-given wisdom, anointing and beauty (Ezek. 28:17; Prov. 16: 18; 18:12; 1 Tim 3:6).
2. He exalted himself, and came under condemnation (Isa. 14: 13-14 with 1 Tim 3:6).
3. He manifested self-will against God’s will (Isa. 14: 13-15). Note the five “I WILL’s” of Lucifer’s ambition here.
a. I WILL ascend into heaven. Self-will.
b. I WILL exalt my throne above the stars of God. Self-exaltation.
c. I WILL sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north. Self-enthronment.
d. I WILL ascend above the heights of the clouds. Self-ascension.
e. I WILL be like the Most High. Self-deification.
Lucifer FELL through PRIDE and self-will, the very essence of SIN (Isa. 14:12 with Prov. 16:18 and Luke 10:18). He wanted to be independent of God. He rebelled against Almighty God, who created him Perfect in wisdom and beauty.
Lucifer WAS the original SINNER, and iniquity (lawlessness) was found in him (Ezek 28: 15, 16, 18, 1 John 3:8).
Lucifer did NOT abide in truth. He was self-deceived (John 8:44).
He became a LIAR and muderer (John 8:44).
HE IS the source of ALL SIN and in him ‘The Mystery of Iniquity” is personified. He is the original Antichrist ( 11 Thess. 2:7 with Genesis 3: 1-6). He was the first apostate and caused other angels to sin in heaven.
He was permitted to retain his God-given wisdom which became CORRUPTED, and by which he deceives mamkind today (Ezek. 28: 17, 18; James 3:15).
The salient point IS, that Almighty God DID NOT create Satan, the Devil, He created a perfect, angelic being, LUCIFER, perfect in beauty and wisdom, with the power of FREE-will, who CHOOSE out of *PRIDE* to rebell against his Holy, absolute righteous Creator, along with untold numbrers of other lower angels, and they were CAST out of heaven.
One of the many names that Satan is given in God’s Word, the Bible, is *Serpent* meaning, Enchanter, Beguiler, speaker of subtility and wisdom PERVERTED to evil ends (Matt. 10:16; 11 Cor. 11:3; James 3:15; Genesis 3: 1-14; Revelation 12: 9, 14-15; 20:2; Isa. 27:1).
Satan’s entire work IS centered on DECEPTION; he and his hosts of fallen angels, are involved in a great spiritual WAR against Almighty God and His Kingdom (1 Chron. 21: 1; Acts 10: 38; Rev. 2: 10: 12:13, 17; 13:7; 1 Thess 2:18; i Pet 5:8; Rev. 12:4; 11 Tim. 2: 25-26).
The moment Lucifer sinned he was cast out of Paradise, the third heaven, which is the immediate presence of God (Isa. 14: 15; Ezek 28: 16; Luke 10:18).
Our Creator, Almighty God, created Lucifer, perfect, as He did with Adam and Eve, he did NOT create robots, he gave US ‘free-will’ Lucifer, choose to rebell in PRIDE-WILL arrogance, and it WAS he, in the form of Serpent, who beguiled Eve, with LIES, twisting God;s Word to her, which he has NEVER stopped doing from that day, until this very moment, as he continues to beguile and deceive mankind away from the TRUTH of God’s Word, the Bible, which is rampant throughout the world, in the multiplicity of false religions, Cults, etc, etc, IF, one does not KNOW the Truth, of God’s Word, the Bible, one is apt to be severely deceived!
The foregoing on Lucifer, who became Satan, the Devil, is just a brief look from God’s Word, the Bible; there is much more there!
@David:
You created the “Medical corner” “Joke corner” and the “Sports corner” with GP starring in one. What about the “religous corner” so that GP can continue to talk to himself??? chuspe.
Zoe:
The key thing about evil is to see it as in large part the privation or twisting to selfish ends of the good.
For instance, the power of choice is a necessary condition of the ability to love and think for oneself. use this aright, and you love and serve the truth.
Twist it to your personal ends, and it becomes selfishness and deception to gain advantage.
Put that on steroids, and voila, Lucifer to Satan, hey presto — poof!
Simple.
D
PS: I notice that once i have shown whys and wherefores on the principles, there is not any cogent rebuttal from those hwo so quickly dismissed the ideas of hermeneutics and exegesis. Thanks Anon.
@Dictionary…
Please correct me if I am wrong…
But I don’t believe you have answered my direct question in another thread here on BU about what distribution of Linux you yourself use on your own workstation.
Or do you and yours only answer questions when you and yours choose to?
Hmmmmm….
Onlookers:
observe who are being substantial, and who are simply indulging in animosity-driven rhetorical sniping. Especially when a serious challenge to provide a better explanation of the minimal facts surrounding the pivotal incident reported in the NT is on the table.
(Onlookers, you might want to link here for what happens to several popular skeptical theories when they run up against the minimal facts that both conservative and skeptical scholars as a whole accept as credible.)
D
You see why people bore and tire of some Christians and their attitudes?
Now to reply to me Zoe ONLY quoted my reply but not his, which would take the whole conversation out of “context”…but…whatever?!?
These are questions that can never be answered with any clarity by any Christian I have ever known, and I have and still know quite a few learned ones with alphabets behind their names.
God knows everything, sees everything..yet still, could not see what this world would become, could not see that Lucifer would become rebellious, which would then lead to the whole garden of Eden stories etc.
I dont bash Christianity, my mother and my sister (RIP) consider(ed) themselves as such. What I do is bash is arrogance and condescending attitudes from them because of the notion that they are right and everyone else is wrong. What about the many who are yet to know of the Bible?
Even though some questions may seem trivial because they are way beneath your level of thinking, it does not make them stupid, or the the person asking.
@ Dictionary
You always seem ready to do battle here on BU. Yet still there is no discussion on your blog , why is that?
Is it that you also benefit from the very lapse moderation you constantly berate David for on HIS blog as opposed to the strict one on yours?
You fill BU with the longest posts one would ever find on a blog when you could have easily linked to your own. You then try to tell him how to run BU and how much links to allow. How comes these topics are not discussed on your blog with the same hype as shown here on BU.
You love it here don’t you?
That is my observation so dont go ballistic on me ok.
CH:
You are cross-threading, and posing red herrings.
I have not seen any such question. Where is it?
The answer, in any case, is that I bitterly regret being trapped on a Vista machine just now [when I first got it and tried to rollback to 95, there were no drivers, and by the time drivers came along, I was too busy using the Vista version — a dog, but it works — to do the switch again and go through the associated disruptions. This, for want of the technical support needed to make my much desired transition to Ubuntu.
(Already, Open office is my main office productivity software [I find Go OO 3.2 fork best and fastest on my now aging machine], I retain an old MS Office 97 for compatibility reasons. And just now on a client’s Windows 7, Office 07 machine, I was wishing we were using OO instead. I hate that “ribbon”!)
Technical support to make the transition, is precisely the issue that would not be a problem in a US$ 30 million project to develop Schools of Hope. Especially with partners on the ground that have been doing this there for years, who had 13,000 test machines on the ground on the afternoon of Jan 12 — but many were lost in the destruction of schools.
besides, open source, serious hard and soft ware is too much of an opportunity to break the Wintel monopolies to miss.
So, the turnabout attempt fails.
And, it is irrelevant to the material point that open source is now a credible alternative, and is the working base for something like 1 1/2 million Sugar interface OLPC X0-1’s; as well as many cell phones..
Back on topic, this thread is about hermeneutics and exegesis principles and approaches, and I have today given context through discussing an analogous situation based on a key incident in the life of my Mom. he principles and rules turn out to be in the main glorified common sense, plus a view based on the inference to the credible best explanation of 12 minimal facts accepted by conservative and most skeptical scholars.
Tangent and distraction games are of no benefit, especially when they are multiplied by the — now repeated — slander on your part that Zoe, GP and I do not answer reasonable questions.
In short, you are being willfully decepticve and harmful to the good name of others.
For shame!
Stop it, now, or stand exposed as a slanderer.
D
Technician,
As a matter of accuracy, there is discussion on my blog [but comments are moderated on issues of decency — e.g. just barred a porn linking reference], and that has sometimes been very extensive, e.g. here. [Do some fact checking before trying to say such loaded, but false assertions, next time.]
Why are you ducking away from dealing with matters on the merits, to play at personalities?
Could it be that you have not got a case that would stand up on the merits?
D
PS: i see cutline is back up, with a different background colour.
PS: Technician, I have only intervened here because I was asked to. The need is very very painfully plain.
@Dictionary: “I have only intervened here because I was asked to.
Asked by whom?
@GP, As requested, the following is the exegesis of 1 Peter 2:2; Hebrews 5: 12-13, I Cor 3:2. Milk, and Meat, or solid food!
I Peter 2:2.
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby.’
Exegesis.
“As newborn babes’ (hos artigenneta brephe). ‘Brephos’, old word, orginally unborn child (Luke 1:41, 44), then infant (Luke 2:12), here figuratively, like ‘nepioi.’ ‘Artigenneta’ is a late and rare compound (Lucian, imperial inscription) from ‘arti’ and ‘gennao’ with evident allusion to ‘anagegennemenoi’ in 1:23, probably meaning that they were recent converts, possibly slight proof that the Epistle written before Romans by Paul (kuhl). ‘Long for’ (epipothesate). First aorist (constative) active imperative of ‘epipotheo,’ old verb for intense yearning (Phil. 2:26). ‘The spiritual milk which is without guile’ (to logikon adolon gala). ‘Gala’ is old word for milk as in 1 Cor. 9:7 and as metaphor in 1 Cor. 3;2, ‘Adolos’ is an old compound (here alone in N.T.) adjective (alpha privative and ‘dolos’ deceit), unadulterated MILK which, alas, is so hard to get. ‘Logikon’ is an old adjective in- ‘ikos’, from ‘logos’ (reason, speech), in N.T. only here and Rom. 12:1, used here with allusion to ‘logou’ (1:23) and ‘rema’ (1:25). “the sincere milk of the word” (‘the milk belonging to the word,’ either the milk which IS the word or the milk contained in the word, that IS Christ). So Bigg holds. But in Rom 12:1 Paul uses ‘logikon’ in the sense of “rational” or “spiritual,” and the idea is possible here as Hort holds. In Pelagia (Usener) we have the phrase ‘ton logikon probaton tou Christou’ (the spiritual or rational sheep of Christ). ‘That ye may grow thereby’ (hina an autoi auxethete). Purpose clause with ‘hina’ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of ‘auxano’, old and common verb to grow. See the same metaphor in Col. 2: 19; Eph. 4:15. Peter uses the Word of God as the food for growth, especially for babes in Christ, not emphasizing the distinction from solid food (broma) made in 1 Cor. 3:12; Heb. 5:13. Salvation (soterian) here is final salvation.’
Hebrews 5:12-14
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as haver need of MILK, and not of strong meat.”
“For every one that useth MILK is unskilful in the Word of righteousness: for he is a babe.”
“But strong meat belongeth to them that are full age, even those who by reason of use have their senes exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Exegesis:
v.12. “Teachers” (disdaskaloi). Predicate nominative after ‘einai.’ “By reason of the time” (dia ton chronon). Alas, what a commentary on some teachers. “That some one teach you the rudiments” (tou didsaskein humas tina ta stoicheia). Neat Greek idiom, genitive case of the articular infinitive (need of the teaching) with two accusatives of the person (humas, you) and the thing (ta stoicheia, the rudiments) and the accusative of general reference (tina, as to some one). For ‘stoicheia’ see Gal. 4: 3, 9; Col. 2:8. ‘Of the first principles of the oracles of God’ (tes arches ton logion tou theou). Three genitives linked to each other. ‘Arches’ (beginning) illustrates ‘ta stoicheia’, just before, the A B C of Christian teaching like Heb. 6:1f. “Logion” is a diminutive of logos, divine oracles being usually brief, common in the O.T. and Philo for God’s words, in N.T. used for the O.T. (Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2), of God’s word through Christians ( i Peter 4:110, of the substance of Christian teaching ( 1 Cor. 3:2) and not able to chew “solid food” (stereas trophes), without intellectual and spiritual teeth.
v.13. “Without experience” (apeiros). Old adjective (alpha privative and ‘peira’ trial. Inexperienced. The babe (nepios, old word, negative ‘ne’ and ‘epos’ word like Latin ‘infans’ infant, not able to talk), NOT able to chew if one uses only milk and is without teeth. Moral truth is meant by “word of righteousness” (cf. 1:2; 2:3 for the word spoken by Christ).
v.14 “for full-grown men” (teleion). Predicative genitive. the word is for adults, relative perfection (teleioi) in contrast with babes as in 1 Cor. 2:6; 3:1; 13: 11; Phil. 3;15; Eph. 4:4, not absolute perfection (Matt. 5:48. ‘Their senses’ (ta aistheteria). The organs of perception, from ‘aisthanomai’ (Luke 9:45).’By reason of use’ one gains such skill. “To descern” (pros diakrisin). “For deciding between” (from ‘diakrino’), old word with ablative ‘kalou te kai kakou (between good and evil). See 1 Cor. 12:1; Rom. 14:1).
1 Corinthians 3: 1-2.
“And I brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.”
“I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yer now are ye able.”
Exegesis:
“But as unto carnal” (all hos sarkinois). Latin ‘carneus.’ “As men o’ flesh,” Braid Scots; “as worldlings,” Moffatt. This form is -‘inos’ like ‘lithinos’ in 11 Cor. 3:3 means the material flesh, “not on tablets of stone, but on fleshen tablets on hearts.” So in Heb. 7:16. But in Rom. 7:14 Paul says, “I am fleshen (sarkinos) sold under sin,” as if ‘sarkinos’ represented the extreme power of the ‘sarx.’ Which does Paul mean here? He wanted to speak the wisdom of God amomg the adults (1 Cor. 2:6), the spiritual (hoi pneumatikos, 2:15), but he was unable to treat them as ‘pneumatikos’ in reality because of their seditions and immoralities. It is not wrong to be ‘sarkinos’, for we all live in the flesh (kata sarka, Rom. 8:12). It is not culpable to be a babe in Christ (nepios, 1 Cor.13:11), unless unduly prolonged ( 1 Cor. 14: 20; Heb. 5:13f.). It is on of the tragedies of the minister’s life that he has to keep on speaking to the church members “as unto banes in Christ” (ho nepiois en Christoi), who actually glory in their long babyhood whereas they ought to be teachers of the gospel instead of belonging to the cradle rool. Paul’s goal was for all the babes to become adults
v.2. “I fed you with milk, not with meat” (gala humas epotisa, ou broma). Note two accusatives wit the verb, ‘epotisa’ first aorist active indicative of ‘potizo’ as with other causative verbs, that of a person and of the thing. ‘Broma’ does not mean meat (flesh) as opposed to bread, but all solid food as in ‘meats and drinks” (Heb. 9:7). It is zeugma to use ‘epotisa’ with ‘broma.’ Paul did not glory in making his sermons thin and watery. Simplicity does not require lack of ideas or dulness. It is pathetic to think how the preacher has to clip the wings of thought and imagination because the hearers cannot go with him. But nothing hinders great preaching like the dulness caused by sin on the part of auditors who are impatient with the high demands of the Gospel.” (Word Pictures in the New testament, Vol, VI, pp. 94,95; Vol. V, pp. 371,372; Vol. IV, pp. 92,93) emphasis added.
If Paul had a hard time with some Christians, who were unable to understand the real ‘meat’ solid food of God’s Word, and still had to be fed ‘milk’ then we can understand why here on BU, those who are not Christians in the first place, would choke on just ‘milk’!
@Technician, I have posted a brief, but sound Biblical set of facts, that clearly show that God did NOT create the Devil, He created Lucifer, who through PRIDE and rebellion, was cast out of heaven, and subsequently became Satan, the Devil, and all you have to say, is your typical ‘red-herring’ distracting nonsense?
The same thing that caused Lucifer to rebel against his Creator, *PRIDE* which is the root of all SIN, this disguisting PRIDE, prevents you from being man enough, to admit, that what the Word of God states, re Lucifer, becoming Satan, the Devil, is correct, as I have shown.
PRIDE is a KILLER!!!
David Revert to the last format
Off topic (apologies to all)
__________________________________________________
Tea-Bag people are like die-hard Afrikaners who said Mandela could never be president (circa 1984)
“Free Nelson Mandela”
I’m No Robot
____________________________________________________
@ ZOE, GP, DICK.
Where, in all that you all have written, is any of the characteristics in the following verses displayed?
2Tim4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Col.3:12 12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
Gal.5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
******************************************
Posters here will remember that from the moment Zoe hijacked the thread on the Reconstruction Of Haiti and up to now he has been lambasting me left right and centre along with his other two sidekicks.
Now, let me state here categorically that I have no problem whatsoever with the “BU trinity” expounding whatever they so wish, where ever they so wish or whenever they so wish. After all, I believe the constitution still allows all people freedom of speech/religion/association etc.
The problem I have with them is not WHAT they write but HOW they write. It is the attitude and approach that they portray. I get no Christianly vibes from them whatsoever. What I perceive are things like pridefulness, vanity, self aggrandisement etc. If I am wrong let me be quick to apologise but I certainly don’t think so.
If I had been a non-christian searching for knowledge and understanding, the way that these three individuals went about vilifying anyone with a different opinion, with all the vitriol involved, then for sure I would certainly have had to go search elsewhere.
These are just some of my thoughts, I would not be privy to what others are thinking but from some of the responses to these three persons I guess some of them feel the same way.
Let me say though that it is quite possible that on meeting either of these three gentlemen in the flesh that my opinions could very well have to be reversed but going by what I witness here that would be a high improbability.
However, I wish them no harm or ill-will, on the contrary I wish them all the very
best.
Peace to all.
I would like to share how I was taught to do a BOOK STUDY and how I still do a book study after 40 years.
When ever I am going to study a book I plug into this formula. I used to write my MDiv Thesis on an Introduction to 1 John in which I analyzed rater than exegete the book.
I find that this format can be seen in the writings of many authors as well.
I started with one chapter books like 2 John 3 John Philemon Jude Obadiah in order to master the method.
BOOK BY BOOK STUDY – (METHOD)
A. SELECT THE BOOK TO STUDY.
1. For your first book-study, choose a short book.
2. For your first book-study, choose a comparatively easy book.
Examples: I John, Philippians, I Thessalonians.
3. Choose a book rich enough to illustrate advantages of this method and one that gives an appetite for more of the same.
B. MASTER THE GENERAL CONTENTS OF THE BOOK BY SEVERAL READINGS PREFERABLY AT ONE SITTING.
C. PREPARE AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK.
1. Who wrote it?
2. To Whom did he write?
3. Where did he write it?
4. When did he write-it?
5. What was the occasion of his writing?
6. What was the purpose for which he wrote?
7. What were the circumstances of the author when he wrote ?
8. What were the circumstances of those to whom he wrote ?
9. What glimpses does the book give into life and character of’ the author?
10. What are the leading ideas of the book?
11. What is the central Truth of the book?
12. What are the characteristics of the book?
D. DIVIDE THE BOOK INTO ITS PROPER SECTIONS i.e. (OUTLINE IT).
Here, I will share the information I gleaned when I prepared my introduction to 3 John.
I find that when I use a simple method like the one I cited in the last post that I am able to extract more from the passage than from just a casual reading of the book. But then there is a difference between STUDY & SEARCHNG and just reading.
Note that such an introduction to a book is NOT exegesis, which is verse by verse study..
BOOK BY BOOK STUDY
– EXAMPLE; AN INTRODUCTION TO THIRD JOHN
1 AUTHOR: John ,the apostle when an old man.
2 TO WHOM DID HE WRITE; “Unto the well beloved Gaius”. There are 5 individuals by that name in the early church. A) Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29), B) Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4) ,C) One whom Paul baptized (1 Cor 1:14), D) One of Paul’s hosts (Romans 16:23), and E) One to whom John wrote.
Some Bible teachers believe that the last three are all one and the same .If this is so, then we learn that Gaius was converted through John (verse 4),baptized by Paul and was wealthy and hospitable member of the church at Corinth .
Whereas we are not sure as to who Gaius was ,we are quite sure about what he did and the example he has for us, that is WE CAN USE OUR WEALTH,RESOURCES AND TALENTS FOR THE WORK OF CHRIST ……WE MUST USE OUR WEALTH ,RESOURCES & TALENTS FOR THE WORK OF CHRIST.
3 WHERE DID HE WRITE IT? Unsure.
4 WHEN DID HE WRITE IT ? cerca A.D. 90-100
5 OCCASION & PURPOSE FOR WRITING: Many of the early Christians were called to a life of itinerant evangelism without fee or thought of earthly reward (7).Consequently ,they were dependent upon the hospitality of the Christians settled in the various towns ,villages or cities which they passed through, for food and shelter. The beloved elder is concerned about these evangelists who had gone forth to visit the churches and is commending them to the care of Gaius, a kind, generous, hospitable and warm hearted man. John commends him for past kindnesses shown, and urges him to continue his most Christ pleasing work of entertaining the Lord’s servants .He urges him to do this despite the efforts of an arrogant church official called Diotrophes who had secured almost absolute control over this church. In a domineering and autocratic manner, he had refused to entertain or allow these evangelists to minister there, and excommunicated the hospitable church members who would receive them. Although John had written to the church previously about this, Diotrophes had rejected it and would not acknowledge John’s apostolic authority( 9).John promises in this letter to deal drastically with this usurper when he next visited that church. John then commends Demetrius who was praised by all-he had a very good testimony. Such was the situation that called forth this epistle The object of the letter is to commend Gaius for his service and to encourage him
to continue. Demetrius is also commended. Diotropheses behaviour is however rebuked.
This letter mentions three leading brothers in the church .Are we like any of them? Are we like Gaius? Kind, generous & hospitable? Are we like Diotrophes? An arrogant autocratic domineering show pig? Are we like Demetrius who had a glowing testimony and who was praised by all
.
7 -CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AUTHOR: We are unsure
8 -CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE READERS: The striking picture of the early church which this personal letter of John portrays is that of a household of brethren, united by bonds of Christian love, separated from the unbelieving world, extending its influence by unselfish service and by gracious hospitality, but not free, however, from the perils of ambition and jealousy and faction among its members, but guarded and guided by men of divine gifts and graces, strong in love, rejoicing in truth and devoted to Christ (C.R. Erdman ).
9- GLIMPSES OF THE LIFE & CHARACTER OF THE AUTHOR
We see the old apostle, burdened with care of the churches, sustained by love for Christ and his cause, comforted by the sympathy and devotion of faithful friends, zealous for the spread of the gospel, boldly rebuking error and ready to discipline offenders, but tender in his affections and confident in the triumph of the truth. Let us look at the ……
A -The apostle’s LOVE (1) He had love for the brethren
John’s love was strong & sincere.
was rooted in the truth.
was on account of or because of the truth.
B – The apostle’s PRAYER. (2) He had concern for the brethren, for Gaius and for the evangelists. John’s wish or prayer for Gaius’ health . As an overseer of God’s work John was not only concerned to see growth in the business of disseminating the truth, but was also concerned about the physical health and material prosperity of the workers with whom he was associated. [Note that Pentecostals –the rich ones mis interpret this verse to say that all believers should be rich or prosperous in this world’s goods
BE CONCERNED ABOUT GOD/S WORK
BE CONCERNED ABOUT GODS WORKERS both spiritually and physically. Would to God that fellow workers did not have to pray about our soul’s prosperity and only about our health etc
C -The apostle’s JOY (3&4)He had joy in the spiritual prosperity & testimony of the brother. John was joyful because of the reports he had heard about Gaius .A paraphrase of verse 3&4 says “ I was delighted when friends came and told me how sincere and genuine you have been and that you are true in your whole life. Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that my children are living by the truth.”
What gives us joy? Do we give joy to our fellow saints and church leaders and THE LORD as Gaius obviously gave John?
D -The apostle’s WITNESS (4)He won souls .He had won Gaius to Christ.
E -The apostle’s COMMENDATION & ENCOURAGEMENT (5-8 &12) Often church leaders know how to whip or criticize the saints, but forget hoe to give words of encouragement and words of commendation for a job well done, for a sincere effort. A word of thanks ,a word of praise, a word of appreciation. In these verses we see John commending two brethren for their efforts and for their testimony and encourages them ,lest they become weary in well doing Are we as quick to commend and encourage as we are to criticize ? Do we ever give words of encouragement at all ? Do we ever give words of commendation ?
F -The apostle’s TIMELY REBUKE ( 9-11) There are times when church leaders must be firm and speak out against sin and to give adequate and timely and merited denunciation and castigation to erring brethren. This is never an easy task but must be done lovingly and uncompromisingly.
G- The apostle’s ADVICE (11) John’s advice is simple and straightforward . Do not imitate bad examples but good ones .The well doer is a child of God; the evil doer has never seen God .Evil deeds are an expression of false doctrine ; a good life is an expression of true doctrine. What advice do we give ? Is it good advice? Is it worthwhile having ? Is it according to the truth ?
H –The apostle’s DESIRE TO FELLOWSHIP WITH THE BRETHREN (14)
What about us? Do we love the brethren as commanded in John 13:34-35 ? Is this love strong and sincere? Is it rooted and based on the truth ? Do we pray for the brethren ? Are we concerned about God’s work or his workers ? Do we receive joy in observing the testimony and spiritual prosperity of the brethren or are we jealous of them? Do we witness ? Do we commend or do we criticize the brethren ? What encouragement do we give the brethren ? Are we afraid to rebuke the brethren when necessary ?Do we do it in love ? Do we give good advice which is according to the truth ? Do we desire the fellowship of the saints?
10-LEADING IDEAS & CENTRAL TRUTHS OF THE BOOK
The book of third John is of great value, because it WARNS OF THE PERIL OF DOMINEERING LEADERSHIP. In this book John describes the beginning of arrogant, autocratic and domineering leadership which has been such a curse to the Christian church both in days past as well as the present. Even an apostle’s authority was called into question. Such arrogant domineering church officials exhibit many of the characteristics of the false teachers and apostates described in the book of Jude and in 2 Peter 2.John urges us to IMITATE GOOD NOT EVIL (11).
Whereas 2 John discusses THE PERSONAL WALK OF A CHRISTIAN IN DAYS OF APOSTASY
3 John teaches about THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BELIEVER AS A MEMBER OF THE LOCAL CHURCH .The believer must exhibit CHRISTIAN HOSPITALITY and CARE FOR CHRISTIAN HELPERS and CARE FOR THE CHRISTIAN HOUSEHOLD.
2nd John was written to a wealthy woman admonishing her to shut her door against anti-Christian teacher
3rd John was written to a wealthy man exhorting him to continue opening his doors to true ambassadors of the gospel.
The glimpses of the character of JOHN SHOULD CHALLENGE THE SAINTS
The faithfulness and charity of GAIUS SHOULD CONVINCE THE SAINTS
The arrogance and dominance of DIOTROPHES should CAUTION THE SAINTS.
In 2 John ,John says that THE TRUTH IS WORTH STANDING FOR
In 3John, John says that THE TRUTH IS WORTH WORKING FOR
In the next book of the Bible, Jude says that THE TRUTH IS WORTH CONTENDING FOR
TRUTH is obviously the key word of this book. Truth is viewed
1-as the source and nature of the apostle’s love (1)
2-as an inward presence and power (3)
3-as manifesting itself in outward practice(3&4)
4-as our weapon in Christian service and warfare (8 RV)
5- as our companion and partner (8AV) Truth will then give its testimony in our favour (12).
PRINCIPAL PERSONS: In addition to the SELF SUPPORTING EVANGELISTS, John paints three portraits or character sketches.
GAIUS, a sincere and lovable disciple, who was a faithful, hospitable, and good steward in God’s household of his manifold grace. The picture of Gaius is that of a consistent , spiritual , charitable believer, who by the grace of hospitality is strengthening the Church and furthering the gospel of Christ. His Christian faith was exercised and shown by his generosity toward his christian friends and particularly by his hospitality to the traveling evangelists and preachers .Although these brethren were strangers to him, for the sake of the Name he received them into his home, despite the opposition of Diotrophes who attempted to prevent this exercise in Christian courtesy. Gaius recognised that these itinerant brethren were worthy of their sacrifice and worthy of their high service.
DIOTROPHES, an insolent and ambitious church officer, greedy of place and power, man whose pride of place and pride of intellect threatened to wreck the peace and prosperity of the Christian communion .In his arrogant, presumptous self confidence, he had a sharp unscrupulous tongue, and had even opposed the teaching of the authority of the aged and revered Apostle.
DEMETRIUS, who appears to be the bearer of this letter, is a man held in universal esteem by his fellow Christians, whose life accords with his profession, and who has the special commendation of the inspired Apostle . This man was well thought of , loyal to the truth ,a faithful minister and travelling assistant of the apostle.
KEY VERSES 4, 8 , 11
TEACHINGS CONCERNING CHRIST
EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW: imitate that which is good :Demetrius & Gaius and those like them
ERROR TO AVOID : imitate not that which is evil: like Diotrophes and his company
DUTY TO PERFORM : anything that is necessary to facilitate the spread of the gospel.
The two short epistles of 2nd &3rd John disclose the life and character of the members of the primitive church. Christians then, even as now, had their weaknesses and their imperfections, and pastoral oversight was just as necessary to commend the faithful and sincere as to discipline the domineering and derelict.
OUTLINE 3RD OF JOHN: See # 9 above.
*********** NOTE THAT in this particular study the author was able to glean a complete sermon outline for a single parameter listed in the suggestions of the proceedures of how to do a book study. In this case it was under the heading glimpses and character of the author . Obviously the parameter from which you will glean the most when you attempt your introduction ,will vary from book to book.
Now Book introductions to books and be very detailed and most instructive as they give insight into the content reason for the book.
This is illustrated below by my Introduction to Ruth from my Study Guide on the Book of Ruth.
This is what Hermeneutica is about.
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF RUTH.
In studying any book of the Bible it is generally a good thing to prepare an introduction in which certain features about the book are addressed.
In carrying out this exercise for the Book of Ruth, I have added all the snippets of interesting or thought provoking information that I found in my research to add more spice to this study. The student/reader is urged to add to these notes all that will make the appreciation of this important little Bible book to those to whom he presents it.
“Even though the events in Ruth occur during the dismal period of Judges it is in stark contrast to that depressing and depraved era. It is in fact like a pure lily floating on a stagnant pond. Instead of bloody battlefields, we read of blooming harvest fields. In place of the soldier’s shout there is the farmer’s song.
The story progresses from a famine, to a funeral, to a field, and finally to a firstborn.” (1) “The calm poetry of those harvest fields of Bethlehem, the eager gleaner among the maidens, the reapers, the lord of the harvest—have all lived in golden sunshine in our imagination from our childhood.” (2)
Ruth is the first of two biblical books named after a woman, and the third of four non-Israelite women to be mentioned in the Lord’s genealogy in Matthew 1:5. The others are Tamar (Matthew 1:3), Rahab (Matthew 1:6), and Bathsheba (Matthew 1:6). She is also the third of three Old Testament women who foreshadow Christ and His church in the New Testament. The other two being Eve (Genesis 2), and Rebekah (Genesis 24).
The three books Joshua, Judges, Ruth tell the story of God’s establishing his people in the land while Israel was still a theocracy. Joshua is the story of their entering in to possess the land. Judges records 332 years of victories and defeats with cycles of sin, apostasy, unrest wars, judgments and sometimes repentance. But there were some temporary periods of deliverance and peace from the affliction and harassment from their enemies.
The book of Ruth (the only Bible book that is devoted wholly to the domestic history of a woman) relates the story of one of the brighter periods which reminds us that there was a godly remnant living in this period, just as God has promised. Ruth tells the story of one family which was significant because it was in the Messianic line.
“This account of a godly family from Bethlehem reveals something of God’s mysterious and wonderful ways of sovereign grace in fulfilling His divine purposes through a believing remnant.” (3) This reminds us that the promises of God affects families and individuals. It reminds us that God designed that communities and nations and civilizations should revolve around the family with good leadership at the head of each family (Genesis 2). This lovely story is a perfect picture of redemption and the clearest example of Christ as our kinsman redeemer in the Bible.
The book of Ruth though set in the gloomy period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), is in stark contrast to
that depressing and depraved era and the two awful stories with which Judges ends, in that it is
a “story of loyalty in a day of anarchy, an example of purity in a time of immorality.
In Ruth the
narrative moves from the battlefield to the harvest field and from the warrior’s cry to the
gleaner’s song. Ruth is a lily in the mud pond of Judges.” (4)
“The book was written from a
prophetic point of view as is indicated by its moral tone. The standard by which Israel is
measured is their relation to God’s law.” (5)
Jensen writes “The story of Ruth is not only a literary gem of matchless beauty but a spiritual reservoir of living water on a bleak desert. Its beauty magnifies the godly traits of its main human characters, but of deeper significance to the reader are its pictures of Christ the Redeemer, as seen in its types, symbols and shadows, not to mention the grand fact of Christ’s ancestry in the Moabitess Ruth.” (6)
“This short book is in sweet contrast to the two closing stories [of Judges], but it is clear from the first verse that it belongs to this period.” (7).
Deep study of the little book of Ruth will reveal that there are very many spiritual truths to be gleaned and that there are several vantage points from which this book of great diversity can be approached.
1- AUTHOR
The author is unknown, but it is thought by some scholars that Samuel the prophet or some of his prophetic students wrote both Judges and Ruth some time after 1381 BC.
2. THOSE TO WHOM THE BOOK WAS ADDRESSED
Geisler posits that Ruth, like Judges, was written to the newly formed nation of Israel to remind them of the situation when “there was no king in Israel” and to engender in them the attitude of “See how thankful you can be now that God has given us stability under the Davidic kingdom and that we are not living in those near anarchy conditions of the days of the judges when everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (8)
3-TIME OF WRITING
Geisler suggests that Ruth must have been written after 1043 BC, when Saul was crowned, and before 1004 BC when David captured Jerusalem. (9)
4. PURPOSE FOR WRITING
The purposes of the book of Ruth are 1) to set forth the godliness of the remnant during the period of the judges, and 2) to illustrate the law of the kinsman-redeemer.
Jensen suggests that “The chief purpose of the book is to be found in the genealogical table at the end………God was soon to allow Israel to have kings, and so by way of preparation, the book of Ruth introduces the kingly line, Boaz and Ruth being the ancestors of King David through whom came the Savior-King.” (10) “The book introduces a few ancestors of David, the royal lineage of Christ the Messiah. Prominent is the inclusion of a non-Israelite (Moabitess Ruth ) in this line.”
Theologically, Jensen teaches that “Underlying the entire book is its relevance of the character and ways of God: His providence, sovereignty, grace, holiness, and His invitation of salvation to all peoples.”
Jensen notes that historically “the book describes a few intimate experiences of a godly family of Bethlehem in the period of the judges”, and typologically, he states that “The kinsman-redeemer (Boaz) is the prominent Messianic type. Ruth is then a type of the church, the bride of Christ. Some scholars view Naomi as a prominent type of Israel, [and] other types may be seen in the book.” (11)
Geisler points out with respect to the historical purpose that “The Book of Ruth has an important function in Israel’s history. It supplies an important link in the ancestry of king David and shows how the birth of David into the messianic and monarchial line was providentially guided by God. As such it indicates the divine origin of the Davidic dynasty.”
With respect to the doctrinal purpose Geisler asserts that “One very significant doctrinal emphasis of the Book of Ruth is its demonstration of the function of the law concerning the Kinsman Redeemer (Ruth 4; cf. Deut 25:5f).
Ruth also presents the doctrine of the divine origin of the kingdom of David and contains one of the finest examples of filial love and piety in literature.
Concerning the Christological purpose of Ruth, Geisler teaches that “The Book of Ruth beautifully portrays several messianic purposes. It shows how Christ, our Kinsman Redeemer, purchases us for Himself. It also illustrates the grace of God as Ruth the Gentile is brought into the line of messianic blessing (see Matt 1:5).” (12)
5.TEACHINGS ABOUT GOD, THE FATHER
The nature of God is brought out in Ruth in greater detail than first appears from a casual reading of this romance story. Note that God is seen to be the Lord of the forces of nature as well as the Ruler of all the peoples and nations. Note too, that the famine ended when the Lord “visited His people in giving them food”(1:6b). The deaths in Naomi’s family and all the tragic experiences she suffered were directly attributed to the Lord (1:13,21). When Naomi heard the good news that Ruth had gleaned in the field of their close relative Boaz, her response was “May he be blessed of the Lord who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and the dead” (2:20a).
A strong monotheism is evident in the narrative, and all that happened came from the hand of God. The reader is urged to read the Book of Ruth again with the sole purpose of seeing the hand of God in this book.
Some suggestions of attributes to look for include God as the Holy One, as Judge, as the Worshipped One, as the Gracious Lord, as the Rewarder. The fact that God honored a Moabitish woman and bring her into fellowship in Israel, and making her an ancestress of Christ indicates the grace of God. Ephesians 2 indicates that He has done the same for us.
6.TEACHINGS ABOUT JESUS AND SALVATION BY REDEMPTION
The truths about salvation in Ruth can be gleaned either historically or typically. The historical aspect can be gleaned from both the study of the several outlines listed in this introduction, as well as from the chapter by chapter and verse by verse study guide and the notes given in the next chapter. The typical aspect is given here.
It is to be noted in both aspects that Ruth was saved by faith in God, as clearly seen in chapter 1: 16-17. Typically it can easily be seen that Ruth represents the church the body of believers, whose lost condition is traced in chapter 1 to her salvation and exaltation in chapter 4.
The truths about salvation in Ruth are brought out typically by Boaz representing Christ as the Kinsman-Redeemer. Archer points out that “The little book of Ruth is one of the most instructive in the Old Testament concerning the mediatorial work of the Lord Jesus.” (13)
In Luke 24:25-27, Jesus taught us to look for Him in the Old Testament, where he can be found in both prophecy and in type. While prophecies are verbal predictions of Christ, types are anticipations of Him in person, event, and institution. In the book of Ruth, Boaz, in his role as kinsman-redeemer, is a type of Christ.
The book of Ruth speaks of Christ our Redeemer, and is a beautiful picture of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ as our kinsman Redeemer. It shows us both our need of a kinsman Redeemer and the way we may obtain the blessings of redemption. The whole book is a picture of our redemption by Christ, our kinsman Redeemer. The key word, used repeatedly in these four chapters is “kinsman” (2:1, 20; 3:9, 12; 4:6, 14). The kinsman is the one who has the right to redeem.
The apostle Paul reminds us that in our fallen nature we have been sold to the slavery of sin (Romans 7:14). Therefore all mankind is in need of a redeemer. The principle of redemption is to be bought back from the bondage of sin and freedom from its control.
The necessity of a kinsman redeemer, as it relates to its New Testament fulfillment is discussed in Hebrews 2:16-17 which teaches very clearly “For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
These verses bear a direct relationship to the promise that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. In order that the blessing to Abram could have the far-reaching effects and be extended to all the families of the earth in Abraham as God promised, Jesus had to take on human flesh. In order to bring salvation to Abraham and his descendents, Christ had to become one of Abraham’s descendents. He did not merely become a man. He became a Jew. He did this in fulfillment of the promise. He is the blessing through which all the families of the earth shall be blessed. It is very important to appreciate that it is only those who belong to Him who will be heirs with Abraham. (Galatians 3:29). Hebrews 2:18 explains that for Jesus to come to the aid of (or redeem) those who are tempted (and succumbed to sin) He had to suffer.
In the Old Testament, kinsman-redeemers were relatives who protected needy members of their extended families. They could redeem a relative sold into slavery (Leviticus 25:47-49), or preserve the family line of a deceased male relative by marrying his widow and providing an heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). They could also redeem land that a poor relative had sold outside the family (Leviticus 25: 25), or even avenge the blood of a murdered relative (Numbers 35:19-21).
The one who redeems evicts and dispossesses all those who have held his purchased property during the time of its bondage. He takes personal possession of that which has been bought back. Redemption presupposes a dreadful calamity. It presupposes the sin and fall of all the human race in our father, Adam, who sold us into bondage and sin (Romans. 5:12). But Christ, our Kinsman- Redeemer, bought us and brought us into liberty, righteousness, and life (Romans 5:19). Redemption by a near kinsman also presupposed personal inability (Psalms. 49:6-9).
In order to redeem persons, land or lineage the potential Kinsman-Redeemer had to meet several qualifications or characteristics. It was only when a man possessed these qualities that he was permitted to perform this task of the Kinsman-Redeemer. In the Book of Ruth, Boaz, her kinsman-redeemer, typifies and beautifully portrays the Lord Jesus Christ, our Kinsman-Redeemer. The Lord Jesus fulfilled all of these characteristics of the Kinsman-Redeemer, presented in the scriptures as we will see from our examination below.
To fully appreciate and understand the concept of the Kinsman-Redeemer as exercised in Ruth chapters 3 and 4 we must understand what is written in the law of God concerning redemption and the kinsman-redeemer. It will be profitable, therefore, to carefully consider the scriptures which deal with this subject.
Leviticus 25:25-28 lays out God’s law concerning the redemption of property which had been sold. “If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it; Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the excess unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession.”
Leviticus 25:47-48 states the law of God relating to the redemption of people who had sold themselves into bondage. “And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him.” This prophetic law was given to be a picture of Christ and was fulfilled by him.
Although we have no such specific laws in our modern culture, similar ones with which we are familiar, relate to pawning items and mortgages. An item that has been pawned, may be redeemed at the lawfully prescribed value by either the original owner or his lawful representative. The word “mortgage” is derived from two words meaning “death” and “pledge.” A mortgage is “a death pledge.” That which is mortgaged becomes dead, or entirely lost by the original owner’s failure to pay.
The Law of the Kinsman Redeemer required that
a. Kinsman-Redeemer be a male blood relative who, according to the laws noted above, had the privilege or responsibility to act for a relative who was in trouble, danger, or need of vindication. Jesus fulfilled this requirement fully.
b. The kinsman-redeemer must be a divinely appointed redeemer. Only one who is appointed by God has the right to redeem. (John 10:16-18; Hebrews 10:5-14).
c. The one that has right to redeem, must be a near kinsman (Hebrews 2:10-13). The Scriptures are very explicit that this redeemer must be related to the one whom he is going to buy back out of slavery, and that he must be a Kinsman or blood relative. Since the ones who were to become children were flesh and blood – that is, they were mortal men, so also Christ took on flesh and blood and became a mortal man. Jesus took on flesh and became a Kinsman to the human race in order that He might redeem men from sin. Essentially, Jesus is able to redeem, because he is himself both God and man. The Son of God became our kinsman by his incarnation.
Jesus satisfied this requirement because God sent Jesus into the world’s slave market of sin to purchase men from their bondage of sin. He became a Kinsman by taking on flesh and becoming a man. Christ by His incarnation became our blood relative so that he might redeem lost humanity. Jesus took on flesh and became a Kinsman to the human race in order that He might redeem men from sin. It was impossible for God to save us apart from the incarnation of Christ. God could not die for us because God cannot die. He is eternal life and He is the source of all life. Only by being born as a man and taking on human flesh could He experience death for us.
Since the ones who were to become children were flesh and blood – that is, they were mortal men so also Christ took on flesh and blood and became a mortal man. Hebrews 2:11-12 thus teaches “ For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise, And again, “I will put My trust in Him” And again, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”
The Old Testament prophets promised that One would come who would be the Kinsman Redeemer of all men. He would set right those things that had been made wrong by sin. He would set free those who were in bondage to sin. He would purify those who were unclean. He would sanctify His people. The work of Christ did much more than merely provide a fire insurance policy to protect us from hell. Jesus set us apart or sanctified us and made us a part of a special people, known as the family of God. This is in keeping with the promises made to the patriarchs to the effect that he would be our God, that we would be his people, and his inheritance. God kept His promise in Christ – the Kinsman Redeemer.
Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook in the same (Hebrews 2:14).
Although the doctrine of redemption from sin is taught extensively in the New Testament, it is not connected closely with the Old Testament concept of kinsman-redeemer. Christ can, however, be regarded as an example of a kinsman-redeemer since he identified himself with us and redeemed us because of our need. Hebrews 2:16-18 and 4:14-16 point out that besides being our redeemer from sin, Jesus is also a kinsman to us and understands our struggles. Thus he is able to help us in our times of need.
Ruth 2:1 states that Boaz’s pedigree qualified him to perform the role of kinsman-redeemer to Ruth and Naomi. Similarly, Christ assumed our nature, so that he could be our near kinsman and our kinsman-redeemer. John 1:14a teaches that “The Word was made flesh,” and Hebrews 2:14-17 makes it clear that the Son of God became a flesh and blood human being so that as the God-Man he could defeat our great enemy and liberate us from the terrors of hell. God the Son did not become an angel, but a human being. He wanted to be like His brothers and sisters “in all things.” Thus he became our perfect kinsman-redeemer. The Lord Jesus became flesh and blood so that He could be our Redeemer.
d. The kinsman-redeemer must be himself entirely free of the debt and of the bondage which had fallen on the one who was to be redeemed (Hebrews 7:26).
A slave was unable to purchase another slave. From the day that Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden to this day, all have been under that bondage. Since Jesus Christ was the only man who has ever been free from sin, and the bondage of sin, only Christ was qualified to set us free.
e. The one who has right to redeem must be able to redeem. He must be able to fully satisfy all the demands of God’s law and justice for the kinfolk he represents.
If a would-be redeemer did not have the necessary sum of money which was required to pay the purchase price, then he would not be able to redeem his relative. That Jesus was able to pay the ransom price is clearly stated in 1 Peter 1:18-19, where we read “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” I John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
Titus 2:14 teaches that Jesus “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”
Galatians 3:13 reveals that “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”).”
Ephesians 1:7 asserts that “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.”
Christ purchased our freedom through His blood as the payment to redeem us.
It is noteworthy that in the story of Ruth, there was a kinsman nearer than Boaz, who was unable and unwilling to redeem. (Ruth 4:1-6). And so Boaz assumed the right become the kinsman to redeem the land and lineage of Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon, Ruth’s deceased husband. Boaz being a blood relative was able and willing to redeem. Jesus was likewise our willing Redeemer (Hebrews 12:1-2).
Even if there had been another man who had been without sin, the death of such a man would still be lacking the infinite merit to pay for the sins of the whole world. At best, the sacrifice of a finite man could only atone for the sins of a single man. But the death of Christ was not the death of a mere man. It was the death of God in the flesh. God died in our place. Only the death of such a One could have been sufficient to save the world.
It is important to observe the completeness or total efficacy of the Lord’s work in redemption. Not only did He redeem all God’s elect from the penalty of sin by his sin-atoning blood shed at Calvary (1 Peter 1:18-20), but He redeems each one of us from the reigning power and dominion of sin by his Spirit’s irresistible grace in regeneration (Romans 6:17-18), and He shall redeem us from the very existence and all the evil consequences of sin in resurrection glory (Ephesians 5:25-27).
f. The one who has right to redeem must be willing to redeem, and pay the price. No one could be forced to redeem.
It was not enough to have a kinsman who was able to accomplish the work of redemption. He must also be willing to make the sacrifice of paying the price. It was no use for a slave in the Jewish economy to have a rich relative who was unwilling to spend the money to release their unfortunate relative from slavery. Nor would Christ’s righteousness or relationship to us been of any value if He was unwilling to go to the cross.
The Lord Jesus Christ was, however, Jehovah’s willing bond slave. Because of his love for us (Exodus 21:5; Isaiah 50:5-7), He was willing to pay the price of our redemption. This is the most amazing truth of all. God loved us enough to send His Son to die in our place (Romans 5:8; 8:32; I John 3:5; 4:9).
Hebrews 9:12 makes it very clear that it was not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption for us. That God’s love has triumphed over the work of Satan to set us free is the fulfillment of God’s promise of Genesis 3:15. Hebrews 2:14 puts it this way- “That through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.”
When Satan deceived the woman in the Garden of Eden and thereby brought sin into the world. Satan’s plan was to undo God’s perfect work of creation. God had created man in His own image, but Satan caused that image to fall. However, Christ, through His death on the cross, restored that perfect image and conquered death. Not all the hosts of darkness were able to keep the Son of God in the grave. He arose from the dead, proving that He had conquered Satan once and for all, so that he might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives (Hebrews 2:15). Christ thus nullified the effects of the bondage of death and brought to naught the work of Satan. We have been set free from the fear of death.
g. The redemption made was always a particular and effectual redemption. There was nothing general, or universal about it. The redemption was made for specific people, and obtained a specific inheritance. The kinsman redeemer restored that which he took not away (Psalm 69:4).
That is what the Holy Spirit tells us Christ has done for every saved sinner. “Christ hath redeemed us” (Galatians 3:13). He bought us with his blood. Then, at the appointed time of love, he binds the strong man, casts him out of his redeemed house (the ransomed soul), and takes possession of the house himself. Soon, those possessed by his grace, to whom he has given the earnest of the Spirit, shall be personally possessed by the Son of God (Ephesians 1:7, 14; Romans 3:24-25; 8:23).
As Jeremiah bought his cousin’s field to set forth the certainty of God’s promised deliverance (Jeremiah 32:6-12), so the Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed his elect. By the price of his infinitely meritorious blood, he has obtained eternal redemption for all his people (Hebrews 9:12). His obtaining redemption for his people is the pledge of their certain deliverance from all sin and all its consequences by the grace of God.
That God has kept His promises in the work of Christ is very clear.
h. The one who has the right to redeem must raise up a seed.
Two possible kinsman-redeemers appeared in Ruth. There was an unnamed and imperfect kinsman-redeemer who was willing to redeem the land of Naomi’s husband Elimelech, but was unwilling to marry Ruth and perpetuate Elimelech’s seed (Ruth 4:1-8). But the chief kinsman-redeemer figure was Boaz, a godly, responsible well-to-do relative of Naomi’s on Elimelech’s side whose willingness to fulfill the role of kinsman-redeemer contrasted with the unwillingness of his fellow family member. He redeemed the land that belonged to Elimelech by purchasing it from Naomi, and also preserved Elimelech’s line by marrying Ruth, who subsequently gave birth to a son, who was an ancestor of Jesus.
Boaz foreshadows Jesus our kinsman-redeemer, who has also raised up a seed as promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Just as Boaz was an effectual redeemer, and got Ruth, the object of his love, The Son of God, our effectual Redeemer, shall get the people of his choice. Today, there are a people in this world, being chosen of God in eternal election and redeemed by special redemption, who must and shall be saved by God’s omnipotent grace (Isaiah 53:10-12; Psalm 22:30-31; Ruth 4:5-6).
Boaz as a type of Christ as a kinsman-redeemer, preserved Elimelech’s land and family line. In this capacity he foreshadowed the great Redeemer of sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul unites the elements of kinsman and Redeemer in Galatians 4:4-5. Because the Son of God partook of genuine humanity and thereby became our kinsman, He is qualified to deliver us. He became one with us so that we children of Satan (c.f John 8:44; 1John 3:10) might become the sons and daughters of the living God!
Boaz was a complete redeemer. When Ruth got Boaz; she got him and everything in him. Similarly, when Christ redeems us-God’s elect, the Bible teaches emphatically in Colossians 2:10 that “Ye (we) are complete in him.”
It was only when a man possessed all of the qualities described above that he fulfilled all of the requirements of the Kinsman Redeemer and was permitted to perform this task. Jesus alone met all of the qualifications of the Kinsman Redeemer. That’s why we sing “ There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin, He only could unlock the gates of heaven and let us in.”
Just as Boaz was a mighty redeemer, our blessed Savior is mighty indeed. His name is “The Mighty God!” Just as Boaz was a wealthy redeemer, and a wealthy landowner in Bethlehem, the city of Jesus’ birth, Christ is filled with infinite, inexhaustible treasures of grace for sinners.
Just as Boaz was a willing redeemer, Christ willingly laid down his life for us. Just as Boaz was a redeemer as the law required, so too, is our Lord Jesus Christ.
7. THE CENTRAL TRUTH OF THE BOOK
God’s major promise to us in Ruth is that He wants to redeem us so that we can appropriate the benefits of redemption, and sing the song of the redeemed-a song of restoration and renewal in Christ Jesus.
• Redemption restores life. (Ruth 4:6-8). Boaz kept Elimelech’s family alive, by restoring the lineage of Naomi’s husband and sons to continue. When death seemed inevitable redemption restored life. This is the message of Psalms 23:3 He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake. This is what David was harping about in Psalms 51:12 when he prayed “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.” The redeemed in heaven sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood …” Revelation 5:9.
• Redemption gives witness. (Ruth 4:9-10). Redemption always bears witness to the truth. We are witnesses not only of each other, but the redeeming work of God. The Christian life is not to be a life of isolation. It is to be a witness of the great redemptive work of God in us through Christ Jesus. Just as many witnessed the redeeming act of Boaz to Ruth, so we must become witnesses of God redemption in our lives. This is the teaching of Psalms 107:2 “Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, Whom He has redeemed from the hand of the enemy.” The New Testament counterpart of this verse is Acts 1:8 “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” We are to be witnesses of the day Christ redeemed us and bought us back from the slavery of sin.
• Redemption gives new life. (Ruth 4:13-16) The lives of the redeemed share in the new life offered. Boaz did not merely redeem the land, but also the life of Ruth so that the life lineage would continue. For Naomi her life was now restored through the new life she held in her hands. Jesus Christ is our Kinsman Redeemer who gives new life to all who come to Him. The story of redemption continues each time a person confesses and believes in Jesus Christ. The story of redemption continues to give new life, as taught in Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
In Him we find the fulfillment of God’s faithfulness, care, and love. In Him salvation is fulfilled for a sinful and lost mankind. In Him we find that Ruth’s story is our story as we have a Redeemer who is faithful and true.
Ruth made a decision recorded in Ruth 1:16-17, to chose the people of God to be her people, the true and living God to be her God, and the promised land to be her habitat. She is thus the perfect picture of the redeemed believer who like her, were once “in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye (we) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:11-12.)” By the choice she made, Ruth like us (when we received Jesus as Savior) received several benefits described in Ephesians generally, but specifically in chapter 2. One of these is that “Now therefore ye (we) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”(Ephesians 2:19) Ephesians 2 is the very obvious New Testament fulfillment of the promises of God as found in Ruth.
8. THE TRUTHS ABOUT MAN IN RUTH
Jensen suggests that we look for all the good and bad qualities found in the book; e.g. how the formerly heathen foreigner, Ruth was treated by the Bethlehemites.
9. KEY WORDS
The two key words of the book of Ruth are “kinsman” (2:1, 20; 3:9, 12; 4:6, 14), and “redeemer” which give Boaz the title kinsman- redeemer. “The word goel, translated kinsman appears 13 times in Ruth. It basically means “one who redeems, ” and in the setting of Ruth refers to the near male relative of a deceased man who had the right and duty to buy back or redeem land which had been sold to another family, thus preventing the alienation of the land and the extinction of the family. If the nearest kinsman could not fulfill such a redemption, the next of kin (Boaz) had the opportunity.” (14) Jensen notes that “the two key words are essentially synonymous, but the word “redeemer” is added since our English word “kinsman” usually suggests only the idea of family relationship.” He points out too that “the eight occurrences of the word “redeem” in chapter 4 translates the same Hebrew root as goel. ” (15)
“The keynote of the book of Ruth is the Kinsman- Redeemer. In him we see Christ, who has purchased the Church to be His bride. Thirty times in this short book the word “kinsman” is found, or “redeemer”, “near kinsman”, “next of kin”, “kindred”, – like things, all having reference to like things. How plainly this book is intended to teach the doctrine concerning Redemption is seen by examining Chapter 4:4-10. Here the word “redemption” occurs five times in three verses; and in the tenth verse, Boaz declares that in redeeming property he also purchases the widow of Mahlon to be his own wife. Nothing can explain the extreme minuteness of detail here except a typical design on the part of the inspiring Spirit. Our Lord Jesus had to become one with man in order to have the right to redeem. He is therefore our fellow-man; but if He had been involved in man’s fall and identified with man’s sin, He could not have acted as Redeemer. No sinner can redeem himself, much less can he redeem his brother. He is therefore, as the God-man, our Boaz (“Ability”); by that kinship and strength or ability, He is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him; i.e. “The Church which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28), because “Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle or any such thing”. (16)
10- KEY VERSES
1:16-17; 4:14.
11- PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS
Naomi- “pleasant one”
Elimelech- “my God is King”
Mahlon-“sickly”
Chilion “pining”
Orpah-“neck” i.e. stubbornness.
Ruth- “friendship”
Boaz-“in him is strength”
12. OUTLINES
The book of Ruth has four chapters .If you give a title to each chapter it will help immensely in remembering what the book is about . Here are some groups of chapter titles.
CHAPTER 1 IS FILLED WITH SORROW RUTH IS WEEPING
CHAPTER 2 GIVES AN ACCOUNT OF SERVICE RUTH IS WORKING
CHAPTER 3 PORTRAYS SUBMISSION RUTH IS WAITING
CHAPTER 4 DESCRIBES SATISFACTION RUTH IS WEDDED
In chapter 1 we read of RUTH’S TEARS
In chapter 2 we read of RUTH’S TOIL
In chapter 3 we read of RUTH’S TRUST
In chapter we read of RUTH’S TRIUMPH
According to Wilmington, in Chapter1, Ruth is Renouncing. In Chapter 2 Ruth is Requesting. In
Chapter 3 Ruth is Resting. In Chapter 4 Ruth is Reaping.
RUTH- The Story of devotion and fidelity at Bethelem ((Modified from Geisler, page 105-106).
DECIDING – love’s resolve (daughter)- country of Moab (Ruth 1).
SERVING – love’s response (gleaner)- field in Bethlehem (Ruth 2).
RESTING – love’s request (suppliant)- threshing floor in Bethlehem (Ruth 3).
REWARDING- love’s reward (wife and mother)- gate of the city in Bethlehem (Ruth 4). (17)
Outline by Arthur Lewis.
1. The tragedies in Moab (1:1-18)
2. The return to Bethlehem (1:19-22).
3. The fields of Boaz (2:1-23).
4. The marriage proposal (3:1-18).
5. The kinsman redeemer (4:1-12).
6. The marriage of Ruth and Boaz (4:13-17).
7. The genealogy of David (4:18-22). (18)
Chapter 1- Deciding by Faith
Chapter 2- Gleaning under Grace
Chapter 3- Communing in Fellowship
Chapter 4- Resting in Redemption
Chapter 1-2, The Choice of Faith.
Chapter 3, The Venture of Faith.
Chapter 4, The Reward of Faith.
(Outline below was found online).
I. Ruth’s choice. Chapter 1.
A. In Moab. 1:1-5
B. Moab to Bethlehem. 1:6-18
C. In Bethlehem. 1:19-22
II. Ruth’s occupation. Chapter 2.
A. Morning. 2:1-7
B. Noon. 2:8-16
C. Evening. 2:17-23
III. Ruth’s claim. Chapter 3.
A. Evening. 3:1-5
B. Night. 3:6-13
C. Morning. 3:14-18
IV. Ruth’s reward. Chapter 4.
A. Redemption of Ruth. 4:1-12
B. Birth of Obed. 4:13-17
C. Line of David. 4:18-22
13. INTERESTING AND UNIQUE THINGS IN RUTH
According to Wilmington, “Ruth chapter one records the first of three all-important trips to the little city of Bethlehem. Ruth and Naomi made the first (1:19). The prophet Samuel made the second (1 Samuel 16), and Joseph and Mary made the last (Luke 2:4).”(19) The connection between these three passages is clearly Ruth 4:17-22 and Mathew 1:1-5, and the transmission of the promise of Genesis 3:15 of the “seed”. Ruth’s place in the genealogy of Christ was due to the acceptance of Boaz’s role as kinsman redeemer. He thus acted as the type of Christ, the ultimate kinsman redeemer.
There are two promises or two I wills in Ruth Chapter three. Ruth said to Naomi, concerning Boaz, “I will do all that you say” (v 5). She was willing to follow the instruction of one who knew what was best for her soul. Then, Boaz said to Ruth, “I will do all that you say.” (v.11). What a blessing! The Son of God is willing to grant believing sinners everything we need as a matter of free grace, and always does. These promises relate to us too. Christ has promised to save all who come to God by Him. We must come to Him and promise to walk in the Light, and in the light of all the many promises that he has made to us to help us in this walk.
There are also two “rests” in chapter three, two blessed portrayals of the rest that God provides. There was a rest for Ruth (v.1). This is the rest of faith, which we have stressed in this chapter. Sinners coming to Christ cease from their own works and rest in him (Matthew. 11:28-29). There is also a rest for Boaz-the kinsman redeemer (v.18). The Lord Jesus Christ, once he finished the work of redemption for us, entered into his rest; and his rest is glorious (Hebrews. 4:10; Isaiah. 11:10).
Ruth stayed at Boaz’s feet all night. Boaz took great care to protect her. And he provided her with all she needed. She had his heart. She got his name. She had his corn. And she had him! When Ruth returned home she told Naomi all about Boaz. And Naomi assured Ruth of Boaz’s faithfulness (v. 18; Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians. 5:24).
The Lord Jesus Christ is to his people all that Boaz was to Ruth. He has done for us all that was pictured in Boaz’s works of redemption for Ruth. We have obtained in him spiritually all that Ruth obtained in Boaz. Let us therefore give ourselves to him, as Ruth gave herself to Boaz, and live altogether for the honor of him who is our kinsman Redeemer (Romans. 12:1-2;1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Titus 2:10).
The significance of the book of Ruth with respect to the promises of God may be summarized as follows:
• As an important function in Israel’s history, it supplies in important link in the ancestry of king David and shows how the birth of David into the messianic and monarchical line was providentially guided by God, and thus indicates the divine origin of the Davidic dynasty. It thus illustrates the principle of Romans 13:1 that “there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.”
• It is perhaps the best illustration and demonstration of the doctrine concerning the function of
the law with regard to the Kinsman Redeemer (Ruth 4; Deuteronomy 25:5f.). The Book of
Ruth shows how Christ, our kinsman redeemer, purchased us for Himself
• Ruth exemplifies the obedience and trust of filial love which would later be demonstrated in
ultimate perfection by Christ as presented in John’s Gospel. Just as Ruth obeyed Naomi when
sent, Jesus displayed such filial obedience to the Father. This particularly pointed out in John
where the Lord repeatedly mentions that He was sent by the Father.
• Besides illustrating the grace of God as Ruth the Gentile is brought into the line of messianic
blessing (Matthew. 1:5), it illustrates how believers are incorporated into the commonwealth
of Israel as taught in Ephesians 2.
Biblical Hermeneutics is a very indepth and detailed subject matter, that takes many, many long years to properly master, and involves a number of overlaping and connecting principles, if one is going to truly “…present yourself approved to God, a worker who does NOT need to be ASHAMED, rightly dividing the word of truth.” ( 2 Tim. 2:15) emphasis added.
Foundations For Interpretation.
The goal of hermeneutics is to properly deternine what God has said in the Scriptures; to determine the meaning of the Word of God. The foundation for reaching this objective is the ‘bridging’ of the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers. This bridging of the understanding gap IS the foundational ‘means’ for reaching the desired ‘end’: knowing what God meant by what He said. This gap is basically fourfold: the linguistic gap, the cultural gap, the geographical gap, and the historical gap. Each of these must be understood and considered using a problem/solution approach.
1. The Linguistic Gap.
A. Problem: The Bible was written in three languages which are no longer in use. Ancient Hebrew, ancient Chaldee and Koine Greek have long been extinct as spoken languages.
B. Solution: The way to bridge this linguistic gap is to study linguistics. Webster’s dictionary defines linguistics as : “The science of languages; the origin, signification, and application of words; also called comparative philology.” It is necessary to study Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Chaldee and Koine Greek in order to be able to read and understand the earliest Biblical manuscripts. This involves study in three basic areas: vocabularly, grammar and genre.
1. Vocabularly: In order to understand a sentence, it is necessary to understand the words of which that sentence is composed. There are four approaches to accomplish this task:
a. The Etymological study of a word – attempting to understand a word by examining its origin, derivation, formation and history (e.g., the Greek word for obedience, HUPAKOE, comes from two Greek words: HUPO, which means “under”; and AKOUO, which means “to hear,: Thus obedience is a ‘hearing under’).
b. The Comparative study of a word – attempting to understand a word by studying all of its occurances in Scripture. This can be properly done only by taking a Hebrew word, not just the English equivalent, and noting every usage of it in Scripture (e.g., the Greek word DIAKRINO is translated in the King James Version: “to descern. to doubt, waver, to be partial, and to make a difference’).
c. The Cultural study of a word – attempting to understand a word by ascertaining its original cultural meaning. This involves the literal sense of the word, which is its basic customery and socially designated meaning (e.g., the word ‘adoption’ in modern day culture refers to the transferring of a child from one family to another, but in Hebrew culture it referred to a child coming of age in his own family.)
d. The study of a word in Cognate Languages – attempting to understand a word by investigating its equivalents in related languages (e.g., equivalent words in Aramaic may help to clarify the Hebrew, since the two languages are so closely related).
2. Grammar: In order to understand a sentence it is not only necessary to have defined its words, but it is also essential to understand the part each word plays in the sentence. This leads to a study of the general principles and particular rules for writiing the languages of the Bible. The same methods used to research the meanings of words can also be used to research grammar. The study of vocabularly supplies the parts, while the study pf grammar provides the rules for putting together into a whole. ( Interprepreting The Scriptures, A Textbook on How to Interpret the Bible, p.43).
This is just a little glimmer of just one aspect of a number of principles, that go together in making Biblical Hermeneutics so very essential, in order to ‘righty divide’ God’s Word properly, in order then, to be able to teach and preach it correctly.
Believe me, it is labourous and very time consuming, and I thank God for all of the very bright scholars, over the centuries, who gave of their time beyond measure, that lesser mortals like me, could have a resource library of invaluable books and volumes to reference from.
For example, one of my Greek reference books, is “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research, by A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D, Professor of Interpretation of the New testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louieville, Ky.
Professor Robertson, was a brilliant scholar, he started researching for this materpiece of Greek New Testament, not as a young man any longer. In his own words, he said:
“And so I have held to the titanic task somehow till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I was often tempted to give up at all costs. No one who has not done similar work can understand the amount of research, the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this nature.” (Preface, p. vii).
This one volume, a veritable treasure of the Greek New Testament, is 1,454 pages. And, there are any number of other reference works, literally hundreds and hundreds of volumes, and thousands of individual masterpieces, that rest in the bossom of Christendom, that have come down through the centuries, that are priceless in their research and wisdom, re God’s Word, the Bible.
Any serious and sincere student of the Holy Writ, cannot be without some part or portion of this vast wealth of scholastic knowledge, if they want to truly attempt to ‘rightly divide’ His Word. Consulting the informed is an absolute must!
BTW, I forgot to mention that Professor A.T. Robertson, took 12 long years, to complete this Greek masterpiece of work!
On second thought, if Zoe’s attempt at an ‘answer’ is typical of the kind of response we can expect to the questions asked, maybe GP’s response of insult, ignore, and then bring out the dreaded ‘Anon’ may be understandable.
What a childish, simplistic response.
According to Zoe; “God did not create the devil, he created an archangel who ‘went bad’.”
Poor God, if only he had known. I wonder how many other parts of the design of our world ‘went wrong’ because things did not turn out as God had planned?
Perhaps Mr Zoe, this also explains why we have earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards etc. A slight miscalculation perhaps?
If you don’t have a sensible answer why not just say so…..
….you could also follow your two partners and post lengthy bouts of meaningless twaddle which are guaranteed to be left unread and ignored – but are sure to deflect the discussion that has exposed their weak logic.
Look man. GIVE GOD A BIT OF CREDIT.
Here is your simple answer:
As the bushman has repeatedly said, our world has been operating PERFECTLY in meeting all of the design objectives that has been set for it.
The Devil is a VITAL and critical component of that design and was specifically created and configured by the designer, for the role that he must play for his allotted period.
In a similar vein, God is PERFECTLY capable of revealing his truth, secrets and wisdom to ANYONE that he chooses, when he chooses, how he chooses, and where he chooses. He is ALSO perfectly capable of concealing that truth from those whom he choose to- in spite of how much exegeses and hermeneutics they may spout. If you look above, you will see that this is EXACTLY what Paul was saying in my reference.
Now Zoe, Do you really want to take a shot at why Jesus DELIBERATELY misled and confused the multitudes to whom he spoke?
LOL Zoe They will call you a mad man for buying anr reading such books. You should have bought rum and coke and deposited your money in banks guarded by keratinous fibres instead. You should have read Playboy and related matter instead. But you should not now be able to rightly divide the Word in scholarly fashion——-even though the free education ushered in in 1962 was meant that we be all well educated.
Now it is cool to be a dummy! Hilarious!
Theres’ a song in A & M called LORD Thy Word abideth. I like particularly the verse who can know the treasure, who recount the pleasure by they Word imparted to the simple hearted.
@ Dictionary….
Why are you ducking away from dealing with matters on the merits, to play at personalities?
Could it be that you have not got a case that would stand up on the merits?
D
Ducking?….roflmao…no sir, I have nothing to add lol.
How can I?
When the all knowing always right people are on the floor?
You see, for me, I HAD to go to church for 14 years, I was baptised and was called “brother” also but over the years I have realised (my opinion) what religion really is and what the church is really about.
I have not “padlocked” mind to it but I live by a few basic principles with my brother and strive to do good in life at all times.
I would always ask questions though because that part of me is always there and sometimes it can be strong but reality always steps in .
I live my life day by day and when I die, if there is another journey to make then there I will begin but right now I just LIVE. Whether I go to hell or not does not bother me (truthfully , I think we all are in hell already).
@ Zoe…
Forgive me as I am an ignorant dog to you BUT answer me this (I am not being difficult)…if there was no Lucifer to begin with, how would the Devil and all
associated stories come about?
Inversely….if there was no Saul, would there be a Paul?
Take your time …..
@ GP….
But you should not now be able to rightly divide the Word in scholarly fashion——-even though the free education ushered in in 1962 was meant that we be all well educated.
Do you have to be able to rightly divide the word to be considered educated?…..Tell me that is not what you meant and that this ignorant dog misunderstands.
There are lots on non-Christian, highly educated people who benefited form “free” education.
Zoe
Here is Mc Gee on 2 Tim. 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes [2 Tim. 2:23].
Some folk are continually wanting to argue about nonessentials. I don’t have time for that.
I certainly agree with him. He says KEEP THE MAIN THING THE MAIN THING! Seperate the incidentals from the essentials.
Here is some more “twaddle” from this man of God
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God.” You are to study, eager to do your utmost, to present yourself approved unto God. The workman here is evidently a teacher, which means he is to be a diligent student of the Word of God.
“Rightly dividing the word of truth” means to handle rightly the Word of God. To rightly divide the Word the Christian is to be a skilled workman like an artisan. The student of the Word must understand that the Word of God is one great bundle of truth and that it has certain right divisions. The Bible is built according to a certain law and structure, which must be observed and obeyed as you go through the Word of God. You can’t just lift out a verse here and a verse there and choose to ignore a passage here and a passage there. It is so easy to do this, but the Bible is not that kind of Book. This is the reason I maintain that the Bible is to be taught in its entirety.
Here is a quotation that reveals the ignorance of a man who failed to recognize that the Word of God is one great unity that needs to be rightly divided to be understood. I’m quoting from an article: “In short, one way to describe the Bible, written by many different hands over a period of three thousand years and more, would be to say that it is a disorderly collection of sixty-odd books which are often tedious, barbaric, obscure, and teeming with contradictions and inconsistencies. It is a swarming compost of a book, an Irish stew of poetry and propaganda, law and legalism, myth and murk, history and hysteria.” That man really spoke a mouthful. His verbiage is quite verbose and reveals a woeful ignorance of the Bible. And he reveals the result of not rightly dividing the Word of God.
Now what is meant by rightly dividing the Word of truth? Well, there are certain dispensations in the Word of God, different methods whereby God dealt with man. The basis of salvation always remains the same. Man is saved only by believing in the atoning death of Christ. But man expresses his faith in God in different ways. For example, Abel and Abraham brought little lambs to sacrifice to the Lord. But I hope you don’t take a lamb to church next Sunday morning, because you would be entirely out of order.
@ the hood, to Zoe, GP, Dick.
The problem I have with them is not WHAT they write.It is the attitude and approach they portray. I get no Christianity vibes from them whatsoever. What In perceice are things like pridefulness, vanity, self-aggrandisement etc. If I am wrong let me be quick to apologise but I certainly don’t think so!”
Hood, I can only speak for myself, as each one of us, GP and Dictionary are entirely different individuals, with different qualifications, different life experiences, and live in different countries; I only met Dictionary once in person, briefly, well over ten years ago. GP, I have never met in person, but, the three of us have one thing in common, we are Christians,”… Saved by the Grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, a ‘gift’ of God, NOT of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2: 8,9).
Hood, it appears to me, that you are a fairly nice person, somewhat passive in your approach to things and life; not given to passionate outburst like I am, but, that’s just the way we are, I am me, I am not GP, Dictionary, or Hood; each one of us are distinctly unique, God made us that way.
I have being through a terribly rough time in my life; if it were not for God’s Love, Grace and Mercy, in Christ Jesus, I would NOT be alive. I am really, by personality, a very warm, loving, genuine, sincere person, those that really kniow me, have said this to me, and I thank them for acknowledging this in me.
I have always, though, had a very passionate, extremely strong manner, in the way I have always stood up for what I truly believe to be right, the truth, regardless of what the subject matter is; that’s just me. If I am your friend, and I hear someone lying, and slandering your name, against the known facts, man, I’ll stand up to the biggest man, and defend you with my life. Not physically, nor with profane language, BUT, with all my strength verbally, to put that LIAR and slanderous man in his place. I hate liars, I hate injustice, I hate those who TWIST, pervert, and malign facts, evidence, and truth, be it pollitical, social, civic, or otherwise, I have always being like this. I don’t stand up for, or defend colour, class, or status in life, I love justice, righteousness, and truth, and that IS why I have such a deep, passionate, LOVE for God’s Word, the Bible, I KNOW what He has brought me from and through, I KNOW that the Lord Jesus Christ, IS real, and like multitudes of multiplied millions over 2,000 years, I have proved within my own personal life experiences, time and again, over and over again, as millions of others have also testified, that HE, Jesus Christ, IS true and faithfull to His Word, the Bible, and all contained therein. If someone entered my dwelling place, right now, and put an AK-47 to my head, and said, ‘…Deny Jesus Christ, as your personal Saviour and Lord…or else…I’ll splatter your brain all over…” Let me tell you, he would have to kill me…as I’ll NEVER deny my Jesus, ever, never!
Hood, I have had many personal experiences before being Saved, in, by, and through Jesus’ Atoning Death, and Resurrection, with many wonderful, nice, warm, loving people, so sweet to be with, but, you know what…none of them, stood UP for anything about Jesus and God’s Word, none of them taught me what repentance was all about, nothing about eternal life, and eternal damnation…so sweet, they were loving me straight to Hell, with their ever, so warm, loving, nothingness!
I would rather hear from someone, who is passionate, firery, hot for God and His Word, who will tell me the TRUTH, even though they come accross hard, rough, than to be deceived by those who appear, so loving, warm and sweet.
John the Baptist Prepares the Way for Jesus, did NOT beat around the bush, He said, “REPENT, for the Kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3: 2).
Hear Jesus: I tell you, no, unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5).
What were Peter’s words as he preached after the Coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost?
“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…” (Acts. 2:38).
Hood, there was no really nice, warm, way to tell you the historic facts, all there recorded about the Joseph Smith Jr, et all, whose writings teach and mix with the truth of God’s Word, terrible, outright, false doctrine, that simply IS in direct contradiction to the One Gospel, as recorded in the New Testament Scriptures, “…which was once for ALL delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3b).
Hood, telling the truth, to someone, however sincere a person they may be, is never an easy thing to do!
Mother Theresa, a Roman Catholic, held many a dying Hindu and Muslim, in her arms, and is reported to have said to them, in their dying condition, ‘…believe in your god…” Is this what yiu tell a lost Hindu and Muslin? If you claim to be a Christian? Hardly!
BTW, I understand that the secular Muslim Arabic TV station Al Jer…something, is reporting that around 15,000 Muslims are converting to Christianity every day in the Middle East. They are finding true Peace, Joy, and Purpose in Jesus Christ, that they never had with Mohammad, or Allah!
Techie my friend!
You engaging in semantics man.
I grew up in a time when being educated was considered to be important…..being knowlegeable and “well read!’
As a boy I followee my culture I read a lot of books as a youth but after March 8th 1968 I narrowed the focus of my reading to Bible related matters, and matters that would result in me becoming a Dr. When I became interested in Real Estate I added that to my reading. I have always also maintained my reading about Cricket.
Having been mocked in this forum for havving attended HC and having degrees and being a bright boy….I can now truly wonder and say But you should not now be able to rightly divide the Word in scholarly fashion——-even though the free education ushered in in 1962 was meant that we be all well educated.
Thekey phrase in that sentence is SCHOLARLY FASHION OK?
I did not say that one has to be ” able to rightly divide the word to be considered educated?” Nor does one have to be educated to be able to rightly divide the word.
But I am telling you that as a scholar, that I rightly divide the Word in scholarly fashion OK?
And yes it is obvious that ” There are lots on non-Christian, highly educated people who benefited form “free” education.”
Techie did you know that Oxford & Cambridge and most of the very old universitiers in Europe and the US were opened to teach thier students Bible and the Bible languasges Hebrew and Greek?
t
@Bush Tea, You are not just in terrible ‘spiritual’ deception, from you cultic, occultic meanderings, but, you are also a blasphemer, according to God’s Word, which you consistently twist, malign and pervert.
@ Technician, I don’t speculate outside of what Almighty God, in His infinite wisdom, has revealed and recorded in His Word, the Bible!
All of His Omniscient, Omnipotent, decrees, are absolutely well perfectly so ordered, He NEVER makes a mistake, only foolish, finite minds, delve into stupid arguments, like you et al do!
@ Mr Zoe
@Bush Tea, You are not just in terrible ’spiritual’ deception, from you cultic, occultic meanderings, but, you are also a blasphemer, according to God’s Word, which you consistently twist, malign and pervert.
***********************************************************************************************
What brilliant analysis.
Is this an example of your exegesestic skills? So logical and constructive…… You know Mr Zoe, I think I will try to find out more about your religion. With this level of logic surely you must understand the mysteries of life….
I suspect that the problem with you folks is that the books that you have to guide your beliefs do not address these questions being raised….. Has it crossed your mind that the Bush man knows that?
Despite the bushman’s “terrible ’spiritual’ deception,” I will give you a little bit of free advice – only if you want it.
Your comment to Technician above:”
@ Technician, I don’t speculate outside of what Almighty God, in His infinite wisdom, has revealed and recorded in His Word, the Bible!
************************************************************************************************
….is completely misguided.
The fact is that the true spiritual brilliance of God is revealed in the everyday things around us. The role of the Bible in God’s design is interesting and complex, (much too complex for you trinity boys to understand) but to REALLY understand God, is to be able to ‘read’ the many messages written in the physical world all around us.
If you limit your knowledge to what is written in the bible you could never be more than a babe on milk…. This is why the Holy Spirit of God is the ONLY means and the ONLY necessity, for true deep spiritual knowledge.
Why not exegeses Isaiah 28 – especially from vs 9, and let us know what you come up with…. It goes like this
***********************************************************************************************
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken
***********************************************************************************************
Techie
This little cutie is for you. I feel a man like you can appreciate a nuance like this one.
If in the New Testament
Whenever you see the word if in the New Testament, it can mean one of four things.
• First Class Condition. This is the condition of reality. (If, and it is assumed to be true). This is what Satan used when He was tempting Jesus: “If you are the Son of God (and I know that you are)…” (Matthew 4:3).
• Second Class Condition. This is the condition of unreality. (If, and it is assumed not to be true). This was also used by Satan in the temptations of Jesus when he said, “If you fall down and worship me (and I know that you will not)…” (Matthew 4:9).
• Third Class Condition. This is the condition of potential. (If, and maybe it is true and maybe it is not). This is used in I John 1:9 where we are told, If we confess our sins (maybe we will and maybe we will not).
• Fourth Class Condition. This is the condition of rarity. (If it is so, but it probably is not). This is very rare in the New Testament. It is only used a handful of times. One such time in when Peter speaks of Christian persecution: But EVEN IF you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. (1 Peter 3:14).
When we look at these examples in our English translation, it is not always easy to tell the different types of clauses apart. But in the Greek language, each one has a separate form.
Exegete this for the milk drinkers Zoe. A beg ya man.
Mr Hood
This piece of exegesis is a gift for you my friend.
Jesus promised that (after he procured for us the right to come to God [1Tim 2:5; Acts 4 :12 ]), that he would come back for us .He has always kept his promises. He will therefore keep this one. And He has promised to return for those who are looking for him [Hebrews 9: 28]. This promise is recorded in John14:1-3.
I………………………………. the PERSON
I WILL…………………………….. the POWER
I will COME……………………… the PROMISE
I will come AGAIN……………… the PROSPECT
And receive YOU unto myself……. the PEOPLE
That WHERE I AM…………. .the PLACE
There you MAY BE ALSO…………the PURPOSE
AND SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD.[ 1 Thes 4:17].The cry of our hearts must therefore be Even so come Lord Jesus
In Luke 24:44. Jesus taught that all things which were written by Moses the prophets and the Psalmist concerning Him must come to pass. He must therefore come again.