Ruslan Drumi Ass#3 May be we talked, but I don’t remember and want to raise a question, what is difference between SDA hermeneutics and other hermeneutics. For me even difficult to figure it out, because when I think about major points of SDA hermeneutics, looks like every church denomination uses it. Everybody believes in Sola Scriptura. Many churches believe also in Tota Scriptura and Prima Scriptura. But then we have Historical-Critical Method and Historical-Biblical approach. What else? We believe that Ellen White made a huge contribution in to Adventist Hermeneutics. First of all is that the scripture is the only rule of faith and practice. For example I grew up in a country where majority of population are orthodox. It’s hard to convince the person that the Bible is saying so, if he trust more what the church or priest is saying. And for Orthodox Church the traditions of the father often are the greater light, and the Bible is a lesser light. And if orthodox person is going to read a Bible, often he is going to approach with a certain collection of presuppositions. I also noticed myself reading and interpreting Bible from an Adventist perspective. And when Professor Hannah says, if we find the new light outside the SDA church, and we are convinced it’s truth, we should leave it. I thought, probably I will not be able to do leave this church even if there will be a reason for that. It shows me that very often we approach to study the Bible with Adventist presuppositions. So how the SDA hermeneutics help us to be balanced in interpreting the Bible? What is real Adventist hermeneutics?
I love that you guys are commenting on my presentation, and I really appreciate the perspectives. I'm just learning this stuff and it's helpful to me to see how others see it. I see the hermeneutical idea having a lot to do with the question of where do we place our confidence. Do we place it in having it all figured out? (e.g. "I'm Adventist because the doctrines are Biblical") Do we place it in believing something that sounds good to those around us? (e.g. "I'm Adventist because the community is so wonderful")Or is our confidence in the work we know God is doing in our lives? (e.g. "I'm Adventist because I have found Jesus in this church through the doctrines and people") If the later is true, we will approach others with humility and will seek to lead them to Christ first and foremost, because we know that the revelation of who God is will come from God himself.
This process is not only a mystical process of praying and doing what you feel God is saying. It involves praying, but also consulting the community, consulting scripture, and consulting nature. But always engaging all these revelations as tools by which to see God and not as an end in themselves.
I quote “ We should use every single day to increase logical, experiential, temporal and spiritual knowledge.” This statement resonated deeply with me. The paragraph stresses the importance training the mind to advance everyday. This requires purpose and intention. Unfortunately we live in an entertainment driven society. I am quite certain that the average adult can go several days without learning one single new thing. I really like Ellen G. Whites approach to learning. This model follows a holistic approach to learning. This balanced approach to learning is essential for our church. I think our churches do very well at relaying information, but not in a holistic manner. We thrive on intellectual, theological information, but often fall short in relaying temporal and experimental information. Rarely does one discover how to get better gas mileage with their car, and conserve the environment at Church. By refocusing our church experience, we could build an environment where all forms of knowledge can increase. In conclusion, learning is always intentional. We should seek new opportunities to learn and share what God is teaching us. The more we know, through all modes of learning, the deeper our love will grow for Christ.
I read chapter 8 from “Understanding Scripture” by Ganoune Diop.
This chapter was really good. I was impressed with the breadth of understanding that the author presented in dealing with the issue of “innerbiblical interpretation.” One of the things I appreciated is that he put emphasis not only on direct quotes of one scripture to another, but on the general themes of scripture. So often the method of comparing text with text becomes a study in how to mis-understand the meaning of both texts, but the author discussed with example after example how to understand the theme of one passage and apply that to another.
The last part of the chapter has a list of “guidelines for intertexual reading of scripture” that is quite good. I appreciate that it is a very accessible approach. I think that most lay people would be able to use that list as a guide, and it points to the importance of simply understanding a lot of scripture.
The last item on his list of guidelines is the best, “Focus on the fact that Scripture testifies about Jesus (John 5:39)” (p. 149). That is one of those items that, if you keep it in mind, will correct a multitude of sins in other areas.
Another aspect I appreciate about this chapter is the unity it presents between the New and Old Testaments. It’s one of the things I love about being Adventist. Our theology is very in touch with the depth of meaning in the Old Testament as compared to a Christian community at large which I have found sometimes discounts the Old Testament. I know this is certainly not true of all. As support for this, Diop pointed to instances in the New Testament in which the Old Testament is cited as legitimate and authoritative.
Something else I appreciated is that he pointed out how in Jesus’ use of the Old Testament he unabashedly re-interpreted it. That isn’t to say he conflicted with what the Torah says, but he gave it his own meaning. Other Biblical writers did this as well, including Paul.
This raised a question for me. Do we have the same right? Can we look at scripture as well and say, “no, this has been interpreted wrongly, this is the true interpretation”? Of course, we could be wrong, but could we also be right? It seems like that is exactly what Martin Luther did and exactly what William Miller did.
"We are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the Gospel" - MS 44, 1898. I was impressed by this quote from Ellen White found in Hanna's book on page 60. It seemed to really resonate with my past experience of theological reflection or reflection on the Gospel without deepening my personal relationship with Christ; actually feeling further away from God personally! This quotation prompted me to ask a few questions to delve into what she meant. First I asked the question; What is the gospel according to Ellen White? I searched her writings for the gospel and found that to Ellen White the Gospel is essentially salvation from sin - which is found in both the Old and New Testaments (FLB 88.3-.4). But it was also surprising to me how she overwhelmingly states that Jesus is the Gospel (MS 44, 1898; FLB 88.5). This lead me to ask another question: How do we praise or worship the gospel without praising or worshiping Christ? Is this even possible? As I stated previously, my own experience leads me to believe that it is possible. We can talk about theology without praising or worshiping the God we are talking about. This happens when we talk abstractly about a certain issue. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that this is not good to do; I believe it is necessary and very enjoyable. But the problem comes when we worship theology. We can praise or worship the ideas we expound on about salvation. We can talk about how Jesus is simultaneously God and human or the complexities of the reincarnation or the cross without praising or worshiping God. So this comes me to my last question; how can we praise and worship God while doing theology or talking about the Gospel? Ellen White places a lot of emphasis on spiritual development - Just look at Steps to Christ. And this spiritual development comes as God reveals Godself to us through Scripture, nature, and especially through Christ who is revealed in Scripture. We must make sure that our theological discussions aren't just abstract intellectual concepts but that they deeply affect our personal understanding and worship of Jesus. As we discussed a while ago in class, theology is "God-talk" which includes God's communication to us, our communication to each other, and our communication to God. I believe each of these are necessary for us to have a vibrant, theologically and spiritually deep relationship with God. Praise and worship is a vital way of communicating with God. If our theological reflection does not include this element, according to Ellen White in this quotation it is misplaced and pointless.
"We are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the Gospel" - MS 44, 1898. I was impressed by this quote from Ellen White found in Hanna's book on page 60. It seemed to really resonate with my past experience of theological reflection or reflection on the Gospel without deepening my personal relationship with Christ; actually feeling further away from God personally! This quotation prompted me to ask a few questions to delve into what she meant. First I asked the question; What is the gospel according to Ellen White? I searched her writings for the gospel and found that to Ellen White the Gospel is essentially salvation from sin - which is found in both the Old and New Testaments (FLB 88.3-.4). But it was also surprising to me how she overwhelmingly states that Jesus is the Gospel (MS 44, 1898; FLB 88.5). This lead me to ask another question: How do we praise or worship the gospel without praising or worshiping Christ? Is this even possible? As I stated previously, my own experience leads me to believe that it is possible. We can talk about theology without praising or worshiping the God we are talking about. This happens when we talk abstractly about a certain issue. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that this is not good to do; I believe it is necessary and very enjoyable. But the problem comes when we worship theology. We can praise or worship the ideas we expound on about salvation. We can talk about how Jesus is simultaneously God and human or the complexities of the reincarnation or the cross without praising or worshiping God. So this comes me to my last question; how can we praise and worship God while doing theology or talking about the Gospel? Ellen White places a lot of emphasis on spiritual development - Just look at Steps to Christ. And this spiritual development comes as God reveals Godself to us through Scripture, nature, and especially through Christ who is revealed in Scripture. We must make sure that our theological discussions aren't just abstract intellectual concepts but that they deeply affect our personal understanding and worship of Jesus.
In my readings of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” chapter 8 and 9 dealing with Christ revelation to man through the cosmos I was captivated most by one thought.
This thought was dealing with the idea of light being revealed to all a little bit at a time as they are able to handle it. This was posited because of sin dulling our senses to the full revelation and light of Christ. So we might say it follows that we could not truly understand Scripture if we did not understand to a degree the revelation within the cosmos. We likewise would not understand Christ completely if we did not have a foreknowledge of Scripture. This may or may not be doing the chapter justice.
Still, I love the metaphor of light. I completely agree that we need light in this world to see, in more than just spiritual matters. My own house is the perfect illustration. At night, if all the lights are off in my house I cannot “see.” Yet my eyes are able to adjust and I can navigate all right until I find the light-switch to turn on the greater light. The only time that I really cannot adjust to see is when it is PITCH BLACK. However even if say I was blindfolded I would still have my hands and feet to stumble around and search for a light-switch or to pull off the blind fold, or attempt something to help my visibility. When taken into the spiritual realm I can believe undoubtedly that God has provided ways to reach greater light, even if I am in the spiritual pitch black of sin.
Responding to Wilfred's blog about Revelation Inspiration: Thank you for your reflection on thought inspiration v. other views. I have give this a bit of thought as well, specifically on what we really mean by thought inspiration. How does the Spirit inspire authors of the biblical text? Does God take them out of their culture/mindset/presuppositions and place an alternate heavenly culture/mindset/presuppositions? Are potential "mistakes" in the text limited to grammatical errors or is does the author's culture/mindset/presuppositions and worldview impact the text in a way that could lead to some theological problems. (If I have time I will pursue a couple of these questions in my presentation this coming week in regards to God's revelation through Scripture; conflicting images of God) In a nutshell my question is: Does the Holy Spirit take the biblical author out of his own culture/mindset/presuppositions/worldview or does this impact the text and (if so) could this negatively impact the text?
In my reading of Understanding Scripture I just finished chapter VIII dealing with the Bible’s intertextuality and a light just turned on as I read it!
I am always striving, as other pastors will, to make a Biblical passage relevant to today. Sometimes it seems so difficult, especially if the Bible passage was chosen for me or I have not had a personal experience of that passage speaking to me.
After reading this chapter I realized something about Bible relevance throughout all time. It’s like the Bible writers never wrote a passage or book of Scripture and then at the end included the two words we often imaginarily write in; “The End.” Instead many stories are blatantly without an end, for a simple example I think of the story of Jonah. Certainly this fits into the greater interconnectedness and intertextuality of Scripture because the history of the Scriptures is still an open book. Now I understand the canon is closed, but what I mean is that we are a part of the history of Scripture in that we have the privilege and opportunity of writing ourselves into the story by becoming the characters, by making the right decisions instead of the bad ones, and by following the instructions, corrections, rebukes, and teachings from here forward.
There is not an “End” written anywhere in the books of the Bible, but each author picked up history where they were and applied previous lessons to their current situation i.e. Hosea referring to the time of Jacob’s trouble as to the current circumstance and then Bible writers reflected or even prophesied as to what the future would hold for the individuals involved.
We are in one of those very stories where the future has been prophesied to us, where each passage in Scripture might as well be written about us or for us and when we get to the actual day of the end we will have already decided how our story ends by our application of God’s revelation through His Word. (Of course those who never know God’s Word, i.e. Never knew about or read the Bible are likely excluded from my conclusions.)
"I quote “ We should use every single day to increase logical, experiential, temporal and spiritual knowledge.” This statement resonated deeply with me. The paragraph stresses the importance training the mind to advance everyday. This requires purpose and intention. Unfortunately we live in an entertainment driven society. I am quite certain that the average adult can go several days without learning one single new thing.
I follow that train of thought Kosley. I think even a well intended Christian who spends minimal time on entertainment will still find life to be as busy as it needs to be to avoid spiritual growth or learning.
Now I don't know if I can give credit to the enemy for the increases in technology, but I will blame him for influencing the human race to such competitiveness, such division, and such greed for advancement and power that we as a race in general will spend an entire days worth of activity in the hopes of promoting our own life or self-interests before we would think about spending one minute with our Creator, Savior, and Redeemer God. I fall into that trap.
There is a lifestyle, that is no doubt influenced by where we live, that causes us to be busy or do so much work that results in a worn out mind and body experience that wants nothing more than to do a no-body no-brain activity (watch tv, play games, surf the computer, you name it) just to recover from the chaos we had to go through that day. Maybe I just speak for myself :).
I know I haven't responded to your entire blog, dealing with the holistic learning approach and so forth, but I got caught up on the quote as well. I hope to follow through with sharing what God reveals to us as a church, as its truth that in all areas of life we can see his work.
Hanna, p. 67 - "Christians agree that the heart of Christian theology is the doctrine of the divine-human Christ"
This caused me to ask a few questions: What does this mean in regards to our systematic theology? If we truly believe that Christ is the center of our theology how does that affect the way we view our fundamental beliefs (as Adventists)? How does this change the way we understand and present what we believe? Is Christ really the center of our theology? Really? For the last year or so I have reflected on Adventist theology and asked the question, "What is the center of our theology?" It seems to me that we have a package of right beliefs which are based on our hermeneutics of Scripture and of Ellen White. The problem with having a package of beliefs is that if someone were to disagree with one or if one were to be disproved, since it is a package the whole package would be rejected. Of course we know as Adventists we believe that the 28 Fundamental Beliefs can be revised (just look at the preamble). However, having a package of set beliefs does cause this problem. I believe this is one of the issues young people and those on the "edge" of Adventism have a problem with. If they disagree with one thing then they are not Adventists anymore - they don't accept the whole package so they have to walk away. However, if our Adventist theology, and our 28 Fundamental Beliefs have a center and the center/core radiates outward to various beliefs it seems like this problem will be solved or at least it will definitely improve. If Christ is the center of Christian theology then Adventists by default should have Christ as the center as well. As I discussed in my previous assignment, Ellen White says that the Gospel is Christ. So if we have the Gospel/Christ in the center and emphasize Christ and see every other doctrine as living in light of the Gospel/Christ we will be fully Christian and truly Adventist. This will do away with legalism and will provide a much-needed bridge between Adventism and the larger Christian world. This does not mean, however, that we de-emphasize our Adventist message but that we view it as it relates to Christ; that will have to be another assignment altogether.
I happened to be looking through Ch. 5 in Understanding Scripture, and it seems like the "sound-bite" definition of "sola scriptura" that I and some others tend towards doesn't match the definition used by Martin Luther et al . From the class discussions I had thought that there was a choice to be made between sola scriptura (i.e. only the Bible) , tota scriptura (which I didn' t understand) , and prima scriptura ( Bible first among many revelations ) . Now I see that while the other reveIations of God do fit into the picture , the terms "sola scriptura" and "tota scriptura" are still very relevant and accurate in describing our attitude towards the revelation of God through the Bible. As helpful as the other revelations of God may be, it s important that they not take away from or add to the message of Scripture and its integrity.
While reading about the authority of Scripture, and how the early Christian respect for the Bible was eroded by ( among other things) "scholastic philosophy", it got me thinking of an issue that has puzzled me with regard to modern-day hermeneutics . These days , a lot of times you hear a passage interpreted in terms of the principles supposedly expressed in it . For example , we read "heap coals of fire on your enemy's head" and think "I should be nice to my enemy" . My question is how we avoid principalizing away the truth of Scripture . How do we know that the " coals of fire" passage (which I have grossly misquoted) doesn't mean to do that literally? How do we know that the 4th commandment isn't about just the principle of rest, and that the detail of the 7th day isn't unimportant? How do we know that Paul s comment about women keeping silence in church shouldn't be taken literally? And so on . . .
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 5/ Reflection Reading October 31, 2010
Assignment 5/ Reflection Reading
There are many interpretations for various genres in the bible. The Genre of Parables are the most confusing for me. Many Christians love to dissect the parables of Jesus. They come up with many new nuisances to those parables. Pastor’s love to preach them and some create parables of their own. I find parables difficult and confusing because in the Old Testament parables followed judgment. In the case of David, Samuel told him the parable of the one ewe lamb (2 Sam 12) and David’s judgment came soon after. In the New Testament, Jesus used parables to illustrate truths about the kingdom of God however; he used this same information to hide precious truths from his enemies.
Why does Jesus choose to keep some people in the dark while bringing light to others? It sounds contradictory to the purpose of the Cross. His mission was not to condemn but to bring salvation to the world. Does that salvation include everyone or certain people? Mark 4 allows me to see that Jesus purpose was not to keep people in darkness but their confusion arose from the rejection already in their hearts. The parables seemed confusing, but in reality it was their refusal and resistance to the words of Christ and Christ himself. For example, I don’t like working on cars, so if someone was explaining to me how to fix a transmission in a car, it would go right over my head, however; if someone was explaining to me how to use a T.V. remote control, I would have that mystery solved immediately ( I love T.V.).
Jesus used parables to teach, warn, illustrate characteristics of the kingdom and hide information from those who rejected him. Will there come a time for in-time preachers to use parables like Jesus did? Since parables arise from everyday life experiences and the parables’ of Jesus were stories from everyday life-in order to make a comparison with God’s reality; what are the limitations to this type of interpretation? The limitations are what causes confusion for me. Preachers and church members take a 2010 approach to Jesus’ parables (only the application); although they should not because the setting and background of that era within their story world (parable) is the only way for an accurate or correct interpretation. This is normally what is left out of the translation. The prodigal son and the rich man & Lazarus are the two most misused parables in today’s church by all denominations. It is twisted to fit the preacher’s sermon or viewpoint which is very dangerous for their listeners.
The rich man and Lazarus story is used to support purgatory (Catholics) while the prodigal son is used to keep children under the parent’s control (SDA’s). The author points to literary devices used for interpretation. The three are: ‘Historical, Cultural, Grammatical and Lexical Data’, ‘The Story Analysis’ and ‘Applying the Story Today’. The literary devices are important for the analysis of the text and its context. It is vital for the teachers/ translators of parables to understand and focus on the concept of truth in what they teach. In the end, I pray I am faithful to methods necessary to bring truth for the renewing power of Christ to bring change in the lives of many.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 6/ Reflection Reading October 31, 2010
Assignment 6/ Reflection Reading
I was reading “the authority of the Bible” from Canale’s web page because I wanted to know why I should use a particular bible. I am the owner of a bible with four different translations. They are the New International Version, New American Standard Version, King James Version, and New living translation. I love my bible because, depending on how I feel, one translation becomes clearer or should I say that I can understand it better. I often like to compare each reading to get a broader understanding or another view if the texts do not read the same (they almost always do).
I remember reading about the work of Erasmus, and how he used several Greek manuscripts because he did not have access to one complete manuscript to put forth a Greek-Latin translation. The Greek text was known as textus receptus and this is where we get the basis for our King James Version of the New Testament. The one thing that stuck out with reading about Erasmus is that he ignored older and better manuscripts because he was afraid that texts may have been erratic. Although this is significant for me, it no longer seems important because George Reid points out that since the time of Erasmus; we have discovered older biblical manuscripts. These sources have a 500 year copying advantage therefore offer less chance for mistakes.
If you ask any pastor which bible version you should use, most will say the King James Version. I also am a supporter of the King James however I believe that different versions offer the same value as do King James. Reid states that these are problems in translation such as looser dynamic translation where – translators have taken the liter reading of text and transformed it to read according to their beliefs. This is true, have anyone ever heard of a bible called the “clear word”.
I am not taking a cheap shot at Adventist however; living in 2010 I rather read any version of scripture than none at all. I believed that a good version is necessary for teaching and preaching the word of God but there is also value in translation that are easier to read for the less or uneducated. I also agree that bible readers should select a version based on the most ancient manuscript whose translators are committed to literal translation but I must this question. How much danger can an individual be in if he or she read any version honestly looking for Jesus being led by the Spirit? I would like to believe any version.
From Dr. Hanna’s book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture,” chapter 5, “Reading the revelation of Divinity in Humanity: Will the Real Christ Stand Up?”
Dr. Hanna brought up a number of very tough issues in this chapter that I have never thought about. He talked about how understanding the incarnation requires both an understanding of what divinity is and an understanding of what humanity is.
I have a background in psychology, and one of the things that every psychological theory deals with is the nature of humanity, and they are all very different. Someone once put identified how many different, distinguishable psychological theories there are and came up with hundreds. That’s hundreds of different ideas about what the nature of humanity is. Of course, when you put them all together there are three or four main categories.
It would be easy to say we should just look to the Bible to see what it says instead of psychology, but is theology we produce from such attempts any better? Aren’t there just as many theological theories as psychological theories?
Dr. Hanna left the whole thing in a question mark to be addressed in subsequent chapters, and I guess I’m going to do the same, because I’m not ready to take a position on this issue.
I still remember studying all those different psychological theories and feeling unsatisfied with everyone of them. I do hope that theology can do better. But I think it is crucial to realize that these technical issues are all subordinate to the main truths of scripture, that we need a savior and that Jesus is that Savior. Sometimes in all the arguing we can get confused about it.
Dr. Hanna also brought up the issue of the Trinity and the problems Christians have had in coming to a consensus on the issue. About a year ago I read a book that went through the history of the Christian church in a very broad way. I remember being appalled by all the wars that were fought over the issue of the Trinity. People were killing each other because they didn’t see it quite the same.
Hopefully we are not killing each other anymore, but there is still a lot of nastiness going on, some perpetuated by SDAs and some not. I fear that it only degrades our witness with the world that wonders why on earth we are so angry at each other over issues they see as trivial. Yet, I don’t want to push theological issues under the rug, either. But we need to be kind and understanding with each other.
I appreciate your questions about how can we know what the scripture means. I think you captured that it is very difficult to do so. So the first thing has to be humility in acknowledging that we DO NOT have it all figured out or nailed down. We are probably even wrong about some of the things we think we are right about.
That's okay, if God had wanted to transmit information more perfectly, he would have given us a systematic theology, or maybe bullet-points, instead of the library of poetry, history, epistles, and other genres that we call the Bible.
We have lots and lots of tools, and we should use them. The most important might be to focus on the themes of scripture as a whole and compare scripture with scripture (but only after understanding context).
But ultimately it is up to God to reveal his truth to us. We need to work hard, but pray even harder, knowing that He is the only one who can keep us on track. Then we just need to trust and not worry about it.
Marvin Gittens – Contextual Bible Reading! Reading Assignment 2! As I ponder the idea of Biblical Inspiration, the idea that the words of Scripture are inspired by God, I can’t help but wonder the extent or necessity of considering Scripture, within its Biblically prescribed context. That is to say that we (believers, lay workers, and pastors) tend to use Bible passages out of context, and seem to think it perfectly alright so long as it goes along with presently ascribed church doctrine. A good example of this is in 1 Corinthians 3:16,17 where some tend to use the text to suppose that it is saying that our bodies are the temple of Christ, and therefore not to be defiled by meats, cigarettes, or other poor lifestyle choices, when in fact it seems to be really referring here to the body of Christ as being the church which was apparently divided at the time because of the Spiritual blindness of some, carnality, and the claim to be of Paul or Apollos, rather than of Christ. Further the defiling of the temple in verse 17 therefore may really be referring to that of ‘building some other foundation of faith than that which was laid, Christ Jesus (v.11), if we really consider the text’s context. In Contextual Reading we must consider what came before in the Bible book, not just any specific verse of reference. The meaning gathered by some as pertaining to keeping our bodies pure is still positive and good, it’s just not what the text is talking about.
Chapter 15 in Understanding Scripture: ‘Hermeneutics and Culture’ I am sure and I already have seen it happen on different cultures. People have different approaches in how the Bible is considered. Per example, In a little town where I was raised, the people over there had a very hard way to see the bible verses referring to the “Christian life” and the members of the church were the ones in which the rules were applied heavily. From music to Clothing, any opportunity to be extremist was performed by the elders, pastors and even parents. But I grew up and learning to love God and I started asking, were their way to see the bible and its teachings as the same as I approach the truths inside it today? What happen to myself and the concepts of right and wrong? One thing I really appreciate in this small world is that God touches people in very different ways. Is like this: My personal spiritual experience doesn’t work to someone else and vice-versa. God Has His peculiar way to reach the heart of each one. I confess that today is kind of hard to find a balance in our profession of faith face to a world full of options and so many theories! Should I go back to the past and be so extremist as my church members so I can be more puritan? I honesty believe some people would be very disappointed with Jesus if He would be living today and using the modern methods to preach, read the bible and even evangelize the world!
In Response To: Ruslan Drumi Assignment #3 Hey Ruslan, good questions, I too have pondered how it is that we should approach hermeneutics with regard to ‘what’s the best way of interpretation.’ From what I’ve learned since being in professor Hanna’s class, we should probably as a general rule move away from being too dogmatic about what we assume the text to be saying or meaning. I recently published on the blog (Assignment 2) an idea that we should consider the actual context of texts in scripture, before trying to use statements made as a rule of conduct or denominational teaching. That is not to say that we should ignore ideas that are intelligent just because it might be ‘out of context,’ but that we should try to determine based on the author’s own words, what they seem to at least be ‘trying to say.’ What is a good hermeneutic, I think one that is honest to the writer’s own words and seeming intent within the text. What people, ideas, things, subject(s) does the author seem to be pre-occupied with; what seem to be the goal(s) or purpose(s) of the written text(s)? In other words, we should probably avoid trying to pull out of the text things that are not there. Life-applications are good, but let’s also try to use a hermeneutic that allows for correct interpretation through what is actually written in the text, not only on what others have said is there.
Very good point Wayne!!! I totally agree with what you had to say. We should always consider what the text had to say to the audience "back in the day" in order to better apply it to the present-day audience. We must make an effort to put aside all presuppositions when approaching the text and trying to put ourselves in the place of the original audience.
On the Chapter VII (Guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture), According to Muller the interpretation of the Bible should create a “burning heart” in both the interpreter and those who will hear his/her interpretation (audience). I believe that a major role should be played by the Holy Spirit in this case. The Holy Spirit is the one who touches (or not) the heart of the interpreter, and guides his/her mind in that decision of thinking this or that way. So the same Holy Spirit is the one who converts the hearts and opens the minds of those who hear the interpretation. And for sure, it’s true, can cause a burning heart on both elements. I remember talking to 2 friends about the service in one of the days at PMC. One of them said to me that He didn’t get much from the service that day and the other one said that He had felt a little bit of what haven would be. What happen in the experience of these two individual. Was the Holy Spirit touching in both hearts? I am sure, it was. But the predisposition of the individual in making room for the Holy Spirit in his heart would be also very important. So the same way, if I ask, was Pr. Dwight Nelson’s (the interpreter) heart burning as the same was the heart of one of my friends? I would answer: “I am a believer of it!.” But what happened to the heart of my other friend? For sure He didn’t allow the Holy Spirit to speak to him at that time. For some reason or other, it just didn’t happened! So here is what I conclude, the Interpreter of the scripture had the heart burning. One of the church attendants as well, what about the indifferent one? Just because the process was not completed on that person, should I suppose that the process of “heart burning” didn’t happen? I am sure it did. But It did in those who allowed it to happen.
Understanding Scripture, chap. 8: Assign 3 When read in isolation biblical texts can be very confusing. Without context Scripture can be difficult to decipher and challenge our strongly held views about faith. Context is important for proper interpretation of Scripture as it leave clues to meaning within the text. Being aware of key elements of books and chapters illumine verses. The thrust of this chapter concerns biblical interpretation in the context of the entire bible through associations made in the NT to the OT. The use of OT in the NT is a means of arriving at a proper interpretation. Jesus and the NT writers made copious use of OT scripture. Dr. Diop takes the position that within this framework, the NT writers were faithful in their use of the OT in the original context they were written. The difficulty in this position is that NT use of OT, in some cases, seems to be very arbitrary. In those cases, the situation in which the OT is applied differs from the sense in which it was first written. Nevertheless, I believe Dr. Diop is correct when he says that the use of OT in the NT is legitimate. NT writers were speaking in the larger context of the revelation of Christ Jesus. In this sense, Christ’s arrival and its significance is the idea superimposed over Israel’s temporal society.
Understanding Scripture, chap. 4: Assign 4 Revelation and Inspiration are terms that refer to the way God communicates with us. Christians generally refer to general revelation as nature and special revelation as the Bible. In this chapter, Dr. Canale attempts to ascertain clues from scripture and reason exactly how the revelation-inspiration process operates. After surveying faulty models of revelation-inspiration, he determines R-I was a phenomenal manifestation that only reasonably involved the Bible writers possessing inspired thoughts. These men were free to place inspired thoughts into their own language. This position presupposes that despite human limitations, God’s message is not tampered with significantly. The concept of thought inspiration is a challenge because it places a great deal of power in the testimony of human authors. The verbal inspiration idea is stronger here because it relates to Scripture as a divine operation with a minimal human role. However, thought inspiration is the only way to account for the variety of language, genre and style within Scripture. It also accounts for grammatical and other errors in the Bible. The notion of inspired thought does not take God out of the position of Author of Scripture. Instead, it empowers us to view God as an Author who entrusts humans the joy of being apart of the writing process.
Response, Assign 2 Response to Wayne MEANT AND MEAN ARE DIFFERENT Hey friend, I know you posted this some time ago but I had to comment on it. This is a very important topic and one I have been thinking about for some time. I agree that both what the text means and meant are important, but need to be distinguished. I believe that this can be done best through prayerful exegesis of any passage of Scripture. I believe, nevertheless, some parts of the Scripture (i.e. prophecy) have specific dates of fulfillment and particular applications. I do not believe in multiple meanings which is what in some sense your post hints. Notwithstanding, the language of scripture and faith espoused by believers at anytime and in any circumstance can be related to us living today.
After reading chapter 10 in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture I related to the final section and conclusion the most. In the section titled “Reasonable Faith” I was reminded again that across all backgrounds no matter who you are or what you do; whether rich or poor, young or old, Asian, African, Hispanic, European, etc. and inclusive of both male and female alike everyone has an equal opportunity to know God and to have faith in him as they have the chance to refuse to believe in him.
This is seen through a reasonable faith in which there is enough evidence to have faith, but not so much evidence to remove the opportunity for free choice. The same individuals who choose faith, could equally choose to doubt and the same individuals who choose to doubt could choose to have faith. This encourages me in my walk because the enemy wants me to doubt and my perfectionist attitude wants to have all the answers to all the questions of doubt he poses. Yet I can take hold of the evidence I have been given and with a reasonable faith trust that God is who he says he is through Christ, through the Bible, and through the Cosmos and that He will do what He promised to do; that is offer us eternal life at the second of Christ for those who will believe on Jesus.
The conclusion of this chapter restated that there can be a distinction without a dichotomy between both science and theology, as well as faith and reason. So that we may understand them in a cooperative light.
An interesting topic that caught my attention when reading Chapter 11 in Understanding Scripture titled “Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy” was regarding the promises of salvation to Israel. Were the promises conditional were they literal and will there be a saving of the entire nation of Israel, were they spiritual referring to the people of God who followed after the faith of Abraham? These were the questions that were dealt with in more detail than I will be able to give in this blog.
However as I read about this subject and I began to think about Israel being the first people to receive the salvation message and then the Gentiles, or rather all other peoples, nations, tribes, and tongues receiving it second, I was reminded of the Old Testament stories of both of Abraham’s children and then of Isaac’s children. In each case the first born son was not the one that received the spiritual inheritance. And so I started to wonder if the promise made to Israel of all being saved is not more of a conditional prophecy as well as a spiritual one. If Israel, the Jewish nation today, should show loyalty to God by believing in Jesus and turn from their sins then they could be saved. At the same time all of spiritual Israel (those who have the faith of Abraham, of whom we may be a part) will all be saved because they believe and are counted righteous. The firstborn in this case Israel, may not receive the blessing as the second born Gentiles have been more faithful and could be the real spiritual Israel the promise refers to. Maybe.
I believe I have had this experience as well Deirdre. My excitement for the gospel has at times been excitement for my freedom of condemnation, but without regard to who or how I had received that freedom.
It seems to me there are several steps in true acceptance of the Gospel, which may be in an order something like this:
1 - Realizing our fallen state as sinful human beings
2 - Understanding that a death is necessary for our sins
3 - Accepting that Jesus in our place took our death
4 - Rejoicing in the new assurance of salvation
5 - Remembering the credit and praise for our salvation belongs to God through Christ alone
I say "remember" since I may be ecstatic about the wonderful news of the gospel and my assurance of salvation but forget to return to the Lord and thank him personally and bless his name.
I think of the ten lepers that were healed and the single individual that returned to give thanks. We should search our thoughts and actions and ask ourselves are we the 10% or the 90% in that story?
I believe we can very easily fall into the representative 90% that celebrate the healing and forget to thank the healer. Myself being the first to admit I have been there and done that.
Arthur Jennings Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment 7/ Reflection Reading October 31, 2010
Assignment 7/ Reflection Reading
Dr. Hanna has been teaching in class that a good hermeneutic is important for understanding and interpreting scripture. This is very true but does Adventist have their own hermeneutic as do other religions? My answer is a resounding YES! In reading the section, ‘another look at Adventist hermeneutics’ by George Reid I am even more convinced that an Adventist hermeneutic exists. Reid takes the two fundamental questions into exploration. First he asks, does an Adventist hermeneutic exist and second can we confirm it if it does exist. Past Adventists typically agreed on the foundations, the validity of scripture, and God’s acts with human experience and they also spent much attention looking at the biblical background to illuminate the scriptures.
Then came the influence of Ellen White and how she interpreted scripture in which we took careful note of. Although I believe Adventism has good hermeneutics, I also believe there are some flaws in it as well. Reid points out some revisions such as: the new hermeneutic must cope with problems rather than the enhancement of biblical teachings, factor in the social and physical sciences adjusting its interpretation appropriately, give more weight to background cultural influences, and the changing nature of revealed truth (present truth) as well as other stipulations.
Now, although I am convinced that an Adventist hermeneutic exists, I did not say we should not use it. I only stated there were some flaws, but keep in mind there are flaws in every hermeneutic. We just have to adjust our hermeneutic as often as God reveals through our research, study and commitment to his word.
Reid suggests the major criteria in deciding hermeneutic should lie in its fruits. I believe that is where our (Adventist) hermeneutic has always been. It is a Christ centered hermeneutic that leads all to the saving grace of God. Although our hermeneutic needs some adjustment, I personally would not stray too far from it unless proven contrary of the will of God.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Reflection # Four The nature of Christ Dr. Hanna’s analysis of the nature that Christ existed in during His earthly abode left my mind so much triggered. On the same theme, I read the SDA Bible commentary on Philippians 4:7 that “It was not possible for Christ to retain all the tokens of divinity and still accomplish the incarnation”. Several questions plagued my mind; was Christ conscious of his divinity while in his mission on earth? According to Dr. Hanna’s words, we have one nature that is fallen which all humanity has inherited from Adam. How much of this humanity did Jesus posses, and how much divinity combined with this humanity to make up a divine- human being in the process of incarnation? Bearing in mind that the word was God(divine) John 1:1, what does Paul imply when he writes in Romans 3:23 that “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, Is Jesus inclusive or exclusive in the “all”? In line with the Bible commentary, what might be the implication that Christ retained a few elements (tokens) of divinity in order to accomplish the incarnation? Is it suggesting that Christ was not fully divine or that entirely he did not make use of all his divinity during the earthly life and mission? I kindly request whoever understands these questions to help me figure out the nature of the incarnate Christ.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Assignment # 4 The Nature of Christ Dr. Hanna’s analysis of the nature that Christ existed in during His earthly abode left my mind so much triggered. On the same theme, I read the SDA Bible commentary on Philippians 4:7 that “It was not possible for Christ to retain all the tokens of divinity and still accomplish the incarnation”. Several questions plagued my mind; was Christ conscious of his divinity while in his mission on earth? According to Dr. Hanna’s words, we have one nature that is fallen which all humanity has inherited from Adam. How much of this humanity did Jesus posses, and how much divinity combined with this humanity to make up a divine- human being in the process of incarnation? Bearing in mind that the word was God(divine) John 1:1, what does Paul imply when he writes in Romans 3:23 that “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, Is Jesus inclusive or exclusive in the “all”? In line with the Bible commentary, what might be the implication that Christ retained a few elements (tokens) of divinity in order to accomplish the incarnation? Is it suggesting that Christ was not fully divine or that entirely he did not make use of all his divinity during the earthly life and mission? I kindly request whoever understands these questions to help me figure out the nature of the incarnate Christ.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Response to Wayne Jamel Comment # 4 I appreciate for addressing the issue that is challenging my mind so much. This has been a question that keeps my mind so fascinated whenever I try figuring out the mystery of incarnation in relation to human salvation .In the process of the same analysis, I find myself challenged in trying to understand how much divinity and humanity Christ possessed in the incarnate divine- man state. Was he conscious of this state in his earthly life? If he did, how much of either did he use in his ministry? If you are at the position, kindly elaborate it more for me to understand better.
Ruslan Drumi Ass #4 Just now I have read more completely what Richard Davidson is making the comparison of two different approaches for Biblical interpretation: Historical-critical method and Historical Biblical approach. You remember the chart that we briefly looked at? I was amazed that even within our church there are still many discussions what approach to use to interpret the Bible. I begin to understand more clearly why today we have so many different denominations. And one of the reasons, is the historical-critical method that they are using in interpreting the Bible. For the first one knowledge and the mind are very important, and even Ellen White was writing about this, but the second is what is saying the Lord by these words. That’s why many of the Bible teaching are misunderstood, or interpreted in a different way. Many people study the Bible as a book, just because they like it or as a profession. And Ellen White warned about that. I like her words, when she says about the inspiration of the Scripture. She says: “Don’t touch it, because it’s like the Ark of Covenant”, meaning that we are not to judge which of the Bible parts are not inspirational. I was amazed by the fact that many Adventists theologians or professors do not support the Historical Biblical approach. And here we are blessed to have God’s prophet within our church, because without her ministry we would become just one more denominational movement. I mean that God used that woman to lead his people to a remnant church. I believe that God worked through many religious leaders during many ages, but only this way it was possible to establish the remnant church which would preach the three angels message.
Dr. Hanna raised a question in my mind this week that he didn’t answer. It’s in relation to good and evil. Did God create good and evil as stated in Isaiah 45:7 or is the verse translated the wrong way? I believe that God is not necessary the author of what He allows. I’m not well versed in Hebrew, so I’m not going to parse the verse in order to make it plain. However, one thing I know is that the devil is the father of sin. If sin is evil, how can God create it? This verse is related to another in Genesis 3:22 that most versions translate as to say that: “man become one of us (God) to know good and evil.” Can God know evil? What does it mean to know evil or anything, for that matter? I understand that these are complicated subjects to wrestle with. Isaiah 45:7 is translated by other versions as calamity or hard time. Psalm 92 says “there is no unrighteousness in God.” In the case of Genesis 3:22, instead of “become” the verb is translated as “was” which can explain the state of man before and after sin. Therefore, certain things that are attributed to God as to what He does or create should be considered instead as to what He allows.
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj Comment number 4. Jason’s explanations of the Father and Son was an interesting topic, I saw how we struggle to describe Divine relationship with human words. It was obvious from Jason’s presentation that we are not able to fully understand the terms which are associated with Godhead. God has always used our context to introduce himself to us. He has used human relationships, of a family such as the father, mother, son, and/or daughter parallel to his relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All of these connections are created in our realm and we can relate to them, since we are knitted into our family of origin, the Lord uses this valuable pictures of our lives to be intimate with us. I call this Incarnation of our mind set, it would be hard for us to comprehend the different dynamics of God, if we cannot relate or see it. On a different aspect, this approach may create theological problems, as we try to solve God’s nature. For example some Native Americans believe that God is an Eagle because they quote scripture where God says He covers us with His feathers (Psalm 91:4 He will cover you with His feathers. He will shelter you with His wings.). I believe that Jesus never said He is the absolute truth and He never said that He would fully reveal His divinity to us (I assume it is because we are sinners and would die if we ever saw His Holiness). We use anthropomorphism in our daily life to express our feelings and thoughts about things we cannot comprehend.
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj Comment number 5. I really enjoyed presentation from brother Wilfred Nyambaka. He was very eloquent in describing how God was active in the Scripture with people who did not have knowledge of the Word of God. The way Wilfred explained the Lords revelation to the people which according to the average church going people would not be considered as channels for God’s inspiration. It is amazing to me how Christ wants us to discover Him, where in general we humans will not consider ourselves spiritually fit to receive a message from God. According to some theologians, we have to reach a certain level of spiritual maturity and then God will speak to us or even use us for His cause. Evidently, today it was clearly that through the sacred history of the Bible, God was always involved with people who were outside of Israel and He taught them how to walk with God. I wonder how many non-Adventist people there are, who are sincerely searching for God and walking with Him. We are proud to say that we have 17 million SDA members worldwide, however I believe there are many who practice the 28 Seventh-day Fundamental Beliefs and live outside of our church.
Jesus in the Qur’an, Part one The Qur’an has mentioned Isa al-Masih in 15 suras of the Qur’an. This must mean something very special about Him! He is referred to in over 90 ayats! Jesus/Isa is the “way” (al sirat mustaqueem): 43:61. Jesus/Isa is the “truth” (al haq): 19:34. Jesus/Isa is the “life” (Min Rouhina): 21:91, 66:12 Jesus/Isa: Spoke from the cradle: 5:110, 19:24, 19:29–33. Conceived supernaturally through a virgin named Mary and spoken into being (fayakun): 3:47, 3:59, 19:20. Conceived by the Spirit of Allah (Rouh Al-Qudus): 21:91, 66:12. Of Allah’s Spirit (Rouhana Allah): 19:17, 21:91, 66:12. A Spirit of/from Allah (Rouh minhu from Allah): 4:171. Strengthened/led (ayyadhu) by the Holy Spirit (Rouh Qudus): 2:87, 2:253, 5:110. He and Allah are Lord (rab): 9:31. Is the gospel or good news: 3:45. Sent down (anzalata) from Allah: 3:53. Sent from heaven (metaphorical in Sufi tradition): 5:114-115. Is the Word of Allah (kalimatu Allah): 3:39, 3:45, 4:171. John the Baptist confirms Jesus/Isa as “Word”: 3:39. A son pure, without sin (zakiyyah): 3:46, 19:19. Had no vanity or wickedness: 19:32. Not overbearing or miserable (jabbaran shaqiyyan): 19:32. Is righteous (saliheen): 3:46, 6:85. Near to Allah (muqarrabeen, a special place of honor), he is the only one clearly given this position in the Qur’an: 3:45.
The Qur’an has mentioned Isa al-Masih in 15 suras(Chapters) of the Qur’an. This must mean something very special about Him! He is referred to in over 90 ayaty(Verses)! position in the Qur’an: 3:45. Is mediator/noble/exalted (wajihan or wajih) now and hereafter (This was an exclusive attribute given only to Isa and Moses, who interestingly, were the two covenant presenters): 3:45. Is intercessor (shafa’a); an exclusive right of Allah to grant and assumed for Isa (according to some Sufi interpretations): 2:255, 21:28. Is the straight path (siratun mistaqueem): 3:51, 43:61. Given the secrets of the unseen (ghyab) (supernatural): 3:44. Allah’s favor was on him: 5:110, 43:59. Allah gave him “favor” and prophet status “above others”: 2:253. Allah blessed (mubarak) him wherever he was: 19:31. Given wisdom and revelation of the Old Testament and Gospel: 3:48, 2:136, 19:30, 43:63, 57:27. Allah revealed His will to Jesus/Isa: 4:163. Allah made a covenant with him: 33:7. Is like (is the second) Adam: 3:59. Called the messiah: 3:45, 4:157, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17 (twice), 5:72 (twice), 5:75, 9:30, 9:31. Coming to attest the law: 3:50. Given authority to institute things previously forbidden: 3:50. A “mercy from Allah” (rahmatun): 19:21. Was a clear sign (be-yinat, meaning “clear and without doubt”) unto men (all mankind): 2:87, 19:21, 21:91, 43:61. Showed clear signs (be-yinat) of Allah: 2:253, 3:49-50, 5:114, 43:63. Allah gave clear miracles to him: 2:253. Given power to breathe/create life from clay: 3:49, 5:110. Healed the blind and lepers: 3:49, 5:110. Had power to raise the dead: 3:49, 5:110. Miraculously brings food to earth from heaven: 5:112–118. People plotted (against him): 3:54. Called “liar” and was “slain” (taqutulun): 2:8, 5:70.
The Qur’an has mentioned Isa al-Masih in 15 suras(Chapters) of the Qur’an. This must mean something very special about Him! He is referred to in over 90 ayats(Verses)! Died (mutawafeka is from the Arabic verb tawwafa (cause to die) while amutu is rooted in mata (died)): 3:55, 4:159, 5:117, 19:33. Resurrected from the dead (yum uba’athu): 19:33, (possibly 6:122). Ascended up to Allah in heaven: 3:55, 4:158. Coming back on judgment day (yum al-qiyama): 3:55, 4:159,43:61. A sign of and knows the hour of judgment: 43:61. A messenger/apostle (rasul): 4:157, 5:75. A prophet (nabyyun) of Allah: 19:30. A servant (abd Allah) of Allah: 4:172, 19:30, 43:59. A faithful (shahid) witness for Allah: 4:159, 5:117. Peace (salaam) rests on him: 19:33. An example to the children of Israel: 43:59. Inspired disciples (al-hawariyun) to have faith in Allah: 5:111. Disciples are Allah’s helpers (ansar Allah) of the revelation of Jesus/Isa: 3:52, 61:14. His disciples have power over their enemies: 61:14. Disciples are witnesses to the truth of Jesus/Isa: 5:113. We are ordered to obey (atee'uon) him: 3:50, 43:63. We are ordered to believe (aamanou) in him: 4:159, 5:111. Ordered to follow (ettabio'un) him: 3:55, 43:61. His followers are superior (fawqua) to those who disbelieve: 3:55. His followers are acceptable (true believers) (aamanou minhum) to Allah: 57:27
1. “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him…” Al-Isra 17.023 “If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” Al-Anbiya 21.22 “For we assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": An-Nahl 16.036 2. “…but shun the abomination of idols” Al-Hajj 22.30 “Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." Al-Anaam 6.74 “And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making straightway for Hell!" Ibrahim 14.30 “Remember Ibrahim said: "O my Lord! Make this city one of peace and security: and preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. Ibrahim 14.35 “And he said: "For you, ye have taken (for worship) idols besides Allah...on the Day of Judgment…your abode will be the Fire, and ye shall have none to help." Al-Ankaboot 29.25 3. “The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited.” Al-Araf 7.180 4. “Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!” Al-Araf 7.54 “And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." So We made it [the Sabbath] an example to their own time and to their posterity and a lesson to those who fear Allah.” Al-Baqara 2.65-66 “And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded
1. “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him…” Al-Isra 17.023 “If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” Al-Anbiya 21.22 “For we assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": An-Nahl 16.036 2. “…but shun the abomination of idols” Al-Hajj 22.30 “Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." Al-Anaam 6.74 “And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making straightway for Hell!" Ibrahim 14.30 “Remember Ibrahim said: "O my Lord! Make this city one of peace and security: and preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. Ibrahim 14.35 “And he said: "For you, ye have taken (for worship) idols besides Allah...on the Day of Judgment…your abode will be the Fire, and ye shall have none to help." Al-Ankaboot 29.25 3. “The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited.” Al-Araf 7.180 4. “Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!” Al-Araf 7.54 “And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." So We made it [the Sabbath] an example to their own time and to their posterity and a lesson to those who fear Allah.” Al-Baqara 2.65-66 “And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded
4.“And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant.” Al-Baqara 4.154 5. “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor.” Al-Isra 17.23 6. “Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.” Al-Isra 17.31 “…Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” Al-Anaam 6.151 7. “Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). Al-Isra 17.032 “women…that they will not commit adultery (or fornication)”… Al-Mumtahina 60.12 8. “O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of fealty to thee… that they will not steal…” Al-Mumtahina 60.12 "Turn ye back to your father, and say, 'O our father! behold! thy son committed theft! we bear witness only to what we know, and we could not well guard against the unseen!” Yusuf 12.81 “But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” Al-Maeda 5.39 9. “…shun the word that is false, Al-Hajj 22.30 “…and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fallon you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies! Al-Ghafir 40.28 “Woe to the falsehood-mongers”. Adh-Dhariyat 51.10 “It is those who believe not in the Signs of Allah that forge falsehood: it is they who lie! “An-Nahl 16.105 “Behold! How they invent a lie against Allah! But that by itself is a manifest sin!” An-Nisa 4.5 “If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee, say: "Come! Let us gather together, - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!" Aal-E-Imran 3.61 “Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.” Al-Isra 17.35 10. “And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others: To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things.” An-Nisa 4.32 “Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it…” Al-Isra 17.34
Reflection Assng. # 5 The topic: Guidelines for interpretation of scripture (Chapter vii) covers an important issue to be remembered especially by every Adventist. When coming to bible interpretation, some tend use Ellen White a way that affects negatively instead of positively as it ought to be. If her interpretation of scripture is used as an “end” of bible study, replacing personal exegesis of a text of study, we fail to listen to the bible as well as to her own admonition that her writings are to be read as the “lesser light”. Unfortunately, this tendency is common among our church members and as a result there is less effort in searching of light which in turn has led to the growth of the number of spiritual infants among our church members. If there will be a revival in the church, this is one of the things that need to set straight. If we as people will be prepared to stand in the soon coming “Shaking time” is no doubt we need more of careful personal search of spiritual light and close consideration of the bible by which we have to stand or fall.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i #4 This post is based on the 9th chapter, What Does the Bible Say, in Dr. Martin Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. I blog here specifically on the section, The Natural and the Spiritual, which highlights that Scripture does not teach a dichotomy between the spiritual or natural, implying that neither should theology be separated from science or reason from faith. This reading reminded me of a brilliant presentation I recently heard –and largely disagreed with- by the extraordinary neuroanatomist, Jill Taylor. Taylor shares the story of her massive stroke years ago and how she was able to realize the intricate details of her brain shutting down while she was in the middle of the stroke. In her fascinating presentation, she held a real human brain to highlight how distinct and separate the human mind really is, with a left hemisphere that is entirely separate from the right hemisphere save their one connection to communicate with each other called the corpus callosum. She experienced a stroke in the left side of her brain, which is the side that is all about logic, reason, and the individual. Therefore, Taylor described that as her left brain was shutting down, she would daze into the euphoria of living only with the right hemisphere of her brain, which took her to a place this brain scientist called Nirvana. I realized the New Age basis of her presentation. I also realized how important it is for Seventh-day Adventist Christians to address the issue of whether the spiritual and the natural exists separately or as one. A New Age Nirvana experience is one implication of a theology based on the model that the spiritual and natural exist separately, an implication I refuse to accept.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Chapter 17
In this chapter Gerhard Pfandl gives very clear and balanced guidance on interpreting the writings of Ellen White. He argues for a hermeneutic that closely models and resembles the hermeneutic of biblical interpretation. His argument suggests that since the inspired writings of Ellen White are no less inspired than sacred scripture the same hermeneutical principals should be employed in the interpretation of both. I particularly appreciated his focus on her understanding of truth which I believed properly highlighted the relationship between truth and interpretation. I believe her position of progressive truth deserves further consideration, particularly her emphasis on being open to new light. Equally important to her understanding of truth is her emphasis on obedience to truth as well as openness. I also enjoyed his treatment of Ellen Whites approach to biblical interpretation, particularly his distinction between her exegetical treatment and homiletical use of scripture. The test case he presented helped to demonstrate her use with great clarity and helps the reader of her writings to distinguish between the two. Part of the challenge of pastors and theologians to continue to educate the members of the church as to the dynamics of the two different approaches and how the differ in both their description and prescription of the biblical text. I was surprised to see the exegetical soundness of her interpretive framework. The depth and breath of her understanding of exegetical analysis is quite impressive considering the time of her writing ministry. To include her sound interpretation of scripture she also demonstrated what Pfandl refers to as “common sense.” I believe this may be the most important component of her approach to biblical interpretation, which also serves as basic principle of interpreting her own writings. I believe it is this approach more than any other that will prevent readers from deriving extreme interpretations from her writings. Such an approach also applied to the bible would be equally beneficial when interpreting the bible, while not necessarily recognized as a hermeneutical principal or exegetical approach by most bible expositors it nonetheless represents a relevant principle when interpreting both the inspired writings of Ellen White and the bible. Finally, her continuing development in her writings in the form of modifying statements deserves further consideration both for the interpretation of her writings as well as the writings of biblical authors. This view of scriptures allows for an expanded meaning of scripture both with in its proper context as well as its contemporary relevance.
Shiphrah Fepulea'i Post #5 Reflecting on Fernando Canale’s section on ‘Revelation and Inspiration’ in the book, Understanding Scripture, a number of questions come to mind. Why study Greek and Hebrew words if we believe God inspired thoughts instead of words? Granted, words and thoughts are intimately linked. And God did dictate some passages in Scripture. Yet sometimes it seems we study all passages in Scripture as if we still believe in verbal inspiration! When we turned from verbal inspiration for thought inspiration, did we forget to re-evaluate the drive and purpose behind our study of biblical languages? That is, when I exegete the words of a biblical passage that God did not dictate word for word, why would I preach about how significant it is that the author used a certain word instead of another similar word if I believe God inspired an over-arching thought rather than divinely-selected human words? Finally, is it possible that a perfect God inspired imperfect writers? When the book of Revelation is read in Greek, grammatical inconsistencies are evident whereas the book of John is much better written in the Greek. Thus, scholars suspect that John wrote the Gospel according to John with the help of an editor while he wrote Revelation on his own in exile on the isle of Patmos. This means John was not a Greek word-smith. Yet somehow, via the mystery of the Holy Spirit, the inspired thoughts still permeates through the shortcomings of every Bible writer’s human skills and selected words to convey to us that God loves us, died, rose, and reigns to save us for we could never have saved ourselves.
Deirdre, I really appreciate the approach you're proposing. It's easy enough to simply say, "Well, the Bible teaches it, so we need to believe it," without considering the relationship of a given doctrine to Christ. I think that's why there are people who get wrapped up in all kinds of interesting ideas (such as bringing back the feast days, etc.). I'm amazed at how far some people even take some of our standard doctrines because they're done apart from Christ.
At the same time, your post raises a question for me: just how many of "the 28" can somebody challenge before we should begin to question if the Adventist church is the right place for them? 1 or 2 might be fine...but what if they disagree with a third of them, or if those 1 or 2 are things like Christ, the Bible, the Sabbath, God, etc.? Is the SDA church really the best place for a person who rejects any one of these "foundational" doctrines?
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assigment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assigment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assigment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics Martin Hanna Ph.D. Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it. I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin. I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before. Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Res #5 I want to talk a little bit about the principle Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura and how we can imply these principles in our congregations, or how it works in real life of our church members. I’m going to talk about my church in Moldova, where predominant church is Orthodox Church. I think that somehow this cultural and religious aspect plays kind of role in life of Adventist believers. First of all for Orthodox Church the principle Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist because it’s not biblical. They believe that since Jesus was teaching his disciple orally, it means that oral teachings and tradition are also very important for Christian faith. Therefore for Orthodox believers the authority of the Bible and authority of sacred traditions are equal. But most interesting, is the fact, that common orthodox believers think that all teachings and traditions of their church are found in Bible. And when you show them that according the Bible the baptism of the children is wrong, they cannot believe it’s true. Why is it so? They never studied the Bible. They believed all the teaching and traditions that they heard from their parents or from different people. They live in the culture and environment where everybody believes in that. The Orthodox Church has more authority for them that the Scripture alone. It’s difficult to explain them what’s wrong with this kind of teachings. Or what’s wrong with the celebration of Trinity, or of holy Mother of Jesus. Majority does and believes so, therefore it means that it is truth. Especially if you were born and raised in this culture it’s not easy to find an approach to these people heart. I personally worked with orthodox believers and understand how strong the power of orthodox influence…(continued)
Eddly Benoit’s 5th Reflection The hermeneutical task of interpreting the apocalyptic book of Revelation is one that many believe should be left to the experts. But when you read what the experts have to say, you are sometimes left more confused than when you started. I have come to the conclusion that understanding the book of Revelation is not that hard if you take the following three elements into consideration: 1) appreciate the fact that Revelation is a letter written to actual churches in Asia which at the time were dealing with real problems, very similar to the ones that the world church is dealing with today 2) understand that the symbols being used in this letter were not taken out of thin air, but they are symbols that the people at the time were familiar with, because the source and meaning of those symbols could be found in the Old Testament writings, the Jewish apocalyptic writings, and in the 1st century world symbolism of Asia, 3) last and most importantly, one must never forget that the focus of Revelation is not the beasts, or the dragon, or the women, but Jesus Christ the victor.
Eddly Benoit’s 5th Reflection The hermeneutical task of interpreting the apocalyptic book of Revelation is one that many believe should be left to the experts. But when you read what the experts have to say, you are sometimes left more confused than when you started. I have come to the conclusion that understanding the book of Revelation is not that hard if you take the following three elements into consideration: 1) appreciate the fact that Revelation is a letter that was written to actual churches in Asia which at the time were dealing with real problems, very similar to the ones that the world church is dealing with today 2) understand that the symbols being used in this letter were not taken out of thin air, but they are symbols that the people at the time were familiar with, because the source and meaning of those symbols could be found in the Old Testament writings, the Jewish apocalyptic writings, and in the 1st century world symbolism of Asia, 3) last and most importantly, one must never forget that the focus of Revelation is not the beasts, or the dragon, or the women, but Jesus Christ the victor.
Eddly Benoit’s 6th Reflection One of the Bible texts that I’ve always found fascinating is Genesis 15: 6 which tells us that Abram believed in God and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness. In other word, in a covenant relationship with God, faith produces righteousness (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17). The emphasis here is that Abram entrusted his future in God and in what He would do for him as opposed to what Abram could do for himself.
Many have tried to prove that Abram had an inherent holy moral character or was inherently pious, and they claim that to be the reason why he was declared righteous by God. I believe that proper hermeneutic will bring one to a different conclusion. What’s really happening here is that: God is conferring a divine sentence of approval on Abram not because he was perfect, but because Abram had a right relationship with God. He trusted in God and was obedient to him. And because of his faith which was manifested by his obedience, God chose to declare him righteous.
The Apostle Paul going against the theological winds of his time, which said that Abraham was righteousness because of his perfect deeds, went on to say that the righteousness of God, which I'm defining as the acceptance of God, comes by a faith response and not by works. He illustrated that by explaining that the free gift of righteousness was received by Abraham because of his faith and not earned by human works. And that’s the reason why the Apostle Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 (in Romans 4:3) as evidence that the patriarch himself received justification by believing and not by works.
Pierre Desruisseaux Assignment #8 Comment on Eddly Benoit's post.
I agree with you my friend that the understanding of righteousness by faith has always been a challenge even for our church. I believe that one thing impresses God: obedience, and another makes Him move: faith. The two go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other, for one leads to the other. I believe that fear has undermined the work of many. Our "people" is too much sin conscious instead of grace conscious. As long as we focus on sin, fear is going to be the driving force behind our actions and therefore, we will try to earn salvation by work instead of faith through grace, which is the message of the Gospel. I truly believe that obedience is important and must lead to faith in order for it to be effective. Abram believe and it was counted for him as righteousness. We can believe in the work of Jesus and the saving power of His blood. He is our righteousness. That promise is the good news and sets us free to live and love knowing that our place is guaranteed in heaven. That is my view on the righteousness of Abram and the message that we should be preaching today. Sin has crippled too many and we (as preachers) have worked more on fear of damnation to bring people in instead of the love of God which takes away the sins of the world. I’ll stop here before I start preaching this.
My comment is on the chapter Interpretation of the Gospels and Epistles in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. I appreciate the author’s emphasis on understanding the historical and socio-political background of the times in which these books were composed. I feel that as readers and preachers of the word we make too much of an effort to make Jesus a contemporary, 21st century character. By doing this we are often guilty of doing a disservice to what the text actually has to say about him. I am not saying that the reader and preacher shouldn’t strive to make the message of these books relevant to the 21st century, but I don’t think it needs to be done at the expense of what the text originally made nor at the expense of true, historical Jesus. We do not need to make Jesus “cool” in order for our contemporary audiences to accept him. We need to realize and understand that the historical, authentic Jesus living in 1st century Palestine was as “cool” as it gets. And we need to preach this very Jesus using language that is relevant to our generation without stripping the historical Jesus of any characteristic which the word actually reveals about him. The same things that made Jesus stand out among his contemporaries are the very things that still stand out among us today. We do not need to invent things about him that will appeal to our audience. The fact of the matter is Jesus revealed God’s righteous attributes in the flesh: His love, His mercy, His compassion for mankind, His generosity, and His selflessness. These wonderful attributes still attract human beings today. We do not need to portray Jesus as a gangster from the streets of New York nor as a movie star from Hollywood. He was the eternal loving God manifested in human flesh: 1st century, Jewish flesh.
My comment is on the chapter entitled the Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic. The topic covered in this chapter is along the lines of my research assignment for this class, and I did indeed use it as one of my sources. Jon Paulien and I are in agreement on several points. First of all the importance of the historical context in which the authors of Daniel and Revelation live in; their audiences and circumstances. But even more important is the fact that the message behind Daniel and Revelation should tell us something about the character of God and therefore should be relevant to all audiences despite of geographic or historical position. Prophecy (including Apocalyptic) was not written to satisfy our “curiosity” for the future events. Although there is a predictive component within prophecy, and God does tell the end from the beginning to make his power and omniscience known to the world, the reader is still responsible for the faithful interpretation of what scripture is telling him/her as a follower of God. The individual must go beyond “date-setting” and ask him/herself what these potential events mean in the broader scope of God, His government, and His plans for mankind. A hermeneutic of Apocalyptic that is content with simply configuring historical dates is negligent and in many cases irrelevant to real life. Many of us have been faithful in our readings of the historical books, the wisdom literature, the prophets, the gospels and the letters of the New Testament. However, we sometimes fail to give the books of Daniel and Revelation the same place in our devotional lives. These books are rich in practical counsel and spiritual encouragement, and perhaps more than any of the others highlight the sovereignty of God, the beauty of Christ, and the ultimate victory of Good over Evil. I encourage you to include these books in your masterpiece as you endeavor to paint the perfect picture of God.
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.
E. G. White says the best way used to communicate to the people during His time was the use of parables. but, parables got most of the times a different connotation. We see miracles as hidden ways of transmitting some with information with out a third person understanding. After giving the parable of the sower, Jesus told His disciples that it was given to them to understand it yet they also together with the crowd did not understand the meaning of the parable, and they had to come and ask Him about it.
it is very interesting that the parables were at the same time destined to reveal more the will of God but also hide it. the parables were both inclusive and exclusive. I do not know what determines them to be a veiled truth or a revelation to the people, is it our attitude that decides, I am yet to figure it out.
I have come to approach the words of God in such away that, after doing my best in being faithful in interpreting the word I should always consider the other side of the coin. And it is the work or the interpreter to create notice and present the relation between these two sides.
i wanted to come back on what we discuss about in class, about God not breaking a single law of nature while in performing miracle. God does not need to turn off the law of nature in other to intervene miraculously in the affairs of man, be it the calling of dead back to life, the turning of water into wine and a stick into a snake they are all according to natural laws, though would not have been produced without God standing behind them.
That means that, God in making the world, made it in a such away that it could be flexible to accommodate divine intervention without breaking of the laws of nature. the laws of nature are also God 's law , jus as the ten commandments are His law.
By saying this, I also believe that, even so it is with the moral, precisely the sabbath day. God made the sabbath day in such away that i could accommodate some works without the breaking of the sabbath law that prohibits works in that day; but i will say that He alone just like with the miracles, should stand behind each of these works to make it confirmable with the law of sabbath.
I think we are not prepared to deal with this kind of idea. thats is we are not prepared to accept., just like the Pharisees were disturbed because Jesus had told them that "my Father was at work until now"
I agree with you Eddly that the experts definitely do a good job at confusing the "lay" reader. I also agree with the three principles you suggested for the interpretation of Apocalyptic, especially the third. The focus of Revelation is without a doubt Jesus Christ the Victor
I must agree with you that this statement in Gen. 3:23 has always been a bit troubling to me “…Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” This is a very difficult statement to digest, because trying to understand what God meant when he said that man is like us in that they now know ‘evil’ could lead to confusion about the origin of sin or even more questions about the extent of God’s knowledge. Did God mean that man now knows what He foreknew was going to happen? That’s just one of a thousand questions that can be asked. But here is what I believe; we should not forget that man was not the first being to sin. Lucifer and 1/3 of the angles were kicked out of heaven because they sinned, and that was before the fall of man. God and the other angelic beings were “aware of” or “knew” that as a result of Lucifer's sin, evil now existed in the universe, but man was still unaware of that. Could this be the evil that God was talking about when he said that man has become like one of US (the rest of the universe), knowing good and evil?
Samuel Juma Nyarige Assignment #5 The Nature of Christ The discussions in class concerning the nature of Christ have indeed led me into deeper searching that has finally been fruitful. My study has helped me create a framework within which I can reason the issue rationally. In my experience, I have realized that presuppositions can create a block against free and rational thinking for this and other issues. Figuring out Philippians 2:6-8 in line with Dr. Hanna’s explanations, I feel comfortable with following conclusion; Christ was 100% human and 100% divine.” He was in the very nature of God but made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant and was made in human likeness”. The issue of whether he was in the pre- or post Adamic natures calls for an explanation of how a single individual shares in the divine nature and in the human nature at the same time or how is the person related to deity and to the world. I feel that the following description from Herman Bavinck answers the issue well “True, there is an intimate relationship between the two natures and their properties and powers. But it is a relationship which comes into being in the unity of the person. A stronger, deeper, more intimate union is inconceivable. Just as — to make a comparison and not an equating of the two — soul and body are united in one person and nevertheless remain distinguished from each other in essence and properties, so in Christ the same person is the subject of both natures. The difference between soul and body is the assumption and condition of the inner union of the two in one and the same human being, and so too the difference between the Divine and the human nature is the condition and basis of their union in Christ. The welding of the two natures into one and the communication of the properties from one to another make for no more intimate relationship, but make for a mingling or fusion, and, in point of fact, impoverish the fulness which is in Christ. They subtract either from the Divine, or from the human, nature, or from both natures, and weaken the word of the Scripture that in Him, that is, in Christ, the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwells (Col. 2:9 and 1:19). That fulness is maintained only if both natures are distinguished from each other, communicating their properties and attributes not to each other, but placing them, rather, in the service of the one person. So it is always the same rich Christ who in His humiliation and exaltation commands the properties and powers of both natures and who precisely by that means can bring those works to pass, which, as the works of the Mediator, are distinguished on the one hand from the works of God and on the other hand from the works of man, and which take a unique place in the history of the world”.
Samuel Juma Nyarige Assignment #5 The Nature of Christ The discussions in class concerning the nature of Christ have indeed led me into deeper searching that has finally been fruitful. My study has helped me create a framework within which I can reason the issue rationally. In my experience, I have realized that presuppositions can create a block against free and rational thinking for this and other issues. Figuring out Philippians 2:6-8 in line with Dr. Hanna’s explanations, I feel comfortable with following conclusion; Christ was 100% human and 100% divine.” He was in the very nature of God but made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant and was made in human likeness”. The issue of whether he was in the pre- or post Adamic natures calls for an explanation of how a single individual shares in the divine nature and in the human nature at the same time or how is the person related to deity and to the world. I feel that the following description from Herman Bavinck answers the issue well “True, there is an intimate relationship between the two natures and their properties and powers. But it is a relationship which comes into being in the unity of the person. A stronger, deeper, more intimate union is inconceivable. Just as — to make a comparison and not an equating of the two — soul and body are united in one person and nevertheless remain distinguished from each other in essence and properties, so in Christ the same person is the subject of both natures. The difference between soul and body is the assumption and condition of the inner union of the two in one and the same human being, and so too the difference between the Divine and the human nature is the condition and basis of their union in Christ. The welding of the two natures into one and the communication of the properties from one to another make for no more intimate relationship, but make for a mingling or fusion, and, in point of fact, impoverish the fulness which is in Christ. They subtract either from the Divine, or from the human, nature, or from both natures, and weaken the word of the Scripture that in Him, that is, in Christ, the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwells (Col. 2:9 and 1:19). That fulness is maintained only if both natures are distinguished from each other, communicating their properties and attributes not to each other, but placing them, rather, in the service of the one person. So it is always the same rich Christ who in His humiliation and exaltation commands the properties and powers of both natures and who precisely by that means can bring those works to pass, which, as the works of the Mediator, are distinguished on the one hand from the works of God and on the other hand from the works of man, and which take a unique place in the history of the world”.
Nyarige … Response to Branden’s comment 2, (November) I agree with you brother that both the Holy Spirit and practical study are important in understanding and doing the right hermeneutics. Actually the Holy Spirit addresses our faith while studying addresses our reason. Ellen G White somewhere in her writings say that the “Holy Spirit does not bless ignorance” and Paul admonishes believers to study so as to show themselves “God’s workmen who need not be ashamed.”
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics Blog 2 As I consider the cosmic Christ concept presented by Dr. Hanna, I meditate on my paper that I plan to write. It will deal with the issue of the Eternality of the Son. I find it hermeneutically contradictory to call someone the son while not considering then subordinate and a product of creative generation. It seems that we western minds have so focused on the idea of the trinity that we have neglected their unity, in so much that we have taken the manifestation of the of God as Son and backwardly applied son-ship to the Eternal God. That does not make much sense to me. It appears what do we do with passages like “you are mind son, today I have begotten you”? This clearly suggests son-ship has origination. If son-ship has origination then 1 of 2 things is being implied: either that the 2nd person of the Godhead is a created being, or that son-ship is a created thing that is part of the incarnation of the 2nd person of the Godhead. I cannot think of one way in which one can be a legitimate son, and not be a created thing. In addition, this seems to make the incarnation much larger, because it means that the word took on a role up to that point never experience by any aspect of God. This means that God became a father and God became a son. So not only did the experience of the word take on human attributes, but the experience of the 1st person of the Godhead took on father attributes.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics Blog 3 Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
This passage comes to us on the heels of the prophecy that light will shine on the land of Zebulon and Naphtali, Galilee of the gentiles. If one is a Christian and has read through the New Testament briefly, one will recognize that that Galilee prophecy was quote when referencing the ministry of Jesus. So it is safe to say, from a holistic OT and NT perspective, that Christ fulfilled that Isaiah Prophecy. With the above quote passage coming directly after that prophecy, let us now consider the passage. There are parallels in the passage. “Unto us” is used twice. “A child is born” is synonymous with “a son is given”. The government is for the shoulders of the child to be born. The identity of the one with shoulders big enough for the entire government (empire) is “Wonderful Counselor”, “Mighty God”, “Everlasting Father”, and “Prince of Peace”. In this naming sequence I see a title underscored by three names. The Titled identity of the child to come is the mighty God; the specific identity of the one who is to come is the Wonderful counselor, Everlasting father, and the Prince of peace. This passage speaks to the plural unity of God: Wonderful counselor being the holy Spirit, Everlasting father being God the father, and prince of peace being God the son Jesus Christ. The interesting thing is that all this comes into being. The passage says that his name will be called; it does not say that his name is called. Therefore for Isaiah, The one to come was not then the wonderful counselor , or the everlasting father, or the prince of peace, because unto us the child had not been born yet. He was in fact the might God. Only upon being born do all these 3 manifestations take on their appropriate name. This passage informs us that the one to come is the mighty God, is the counselor, is the father, and is the prince. The one is all 3. The child to be born is all three of them and yet he is most assuredly the prince. The passage is trying to cause us to understand that God upon incarnation did something unique in their relationship to each other and to all of creation, especially humanity. The idea of everlasting has many confused. There is a phrase in the Bible that says God is from everlasting to everlasting: Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Psa 103:17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children Psa 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD. Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
notice that none of these text state that the father is everlasting. The all say that God is everlasting. The Lord is ever lasting. The idea of everlasting in Hebrew is the idea of forever. Forever has a specific starting point and does not end. So forever has a beginning;Everlasting has a beginning. when you read things like from “everlasting to everlasting”, the writer is saying that from a specific point (probably when the writer is writing) in both directions (past and future) The Lord God is. He always is. However when we read Isaiah, the prophet simply says “the everlasting father”. That means that at some point in time Fatherhood had a beginning, and according to the Isaiah passage that beginning was when “unto us a child is born unto us a Son is given”
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics Blog 4 AS I continue my meditation of the eternality of the Son, I am struck at how there is no son language proper for God in the OT. There is the Spirit of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord, the Lord God, the Lord, the mighty God, and yet there is no son language except as it pertains to the prophecy of the incarnate Christ. All throughout the OT there is the prophecy of the seed, the prophet like moses, the ruler from Judah with scepter, the star of balaam, the Son of david, the child who is counselor father and son simultaneously, the suffering servant, etc etc. yet there is nothing that says there currecntly exists someone called the son. Consequently, the idea of God as father is not as frequent as we would believe in the OT either. Everything thing in the OT Bible points forward to the son. I have found nothing that could definitively say that the Son as a divine entity existed. Of course there is the Angel of the Lord, but he is not called the son. The OT is clear that the son is to come, and come he does in the NT. The OT is full of the angel of the Lord, but while the New testament mysteriously lacks the angel of the lord . It is as if the 2nd person of the Godhead held the position of chief messenger (angel) of the Lord in the OT, as he waited for the time to become the incarnate son.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics Blog 5 While it was Clement to seem to have first been willing to construct a theology that attempted to homogenize platonic thought with Christian belief, it appears to be Tertullian who first adequately explained the concept of the Trinity that was satisfactory to the then known Christian world. He is the first one to have state the “one substance and 3 persons” idea, as he stood up to Prazeas and his modalistic idea that the 3 persons of the godhead were in fact 3 different ways God manifested himself (sometimes as Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit). However, it appears that it was Origen who first gave us the understanding that Christ as the Eternal begotten of Son of Father, begotten before all creation. This appears to be based on Colossians 1:12-20, where Paul says that God made all things through the Son, and that all things are held together by the Son, who is before all things. Arius and his Arian heresy argued that the Word was not coeternal with God. Arius argued that the Word was not God eternal, but rather the first born of all creation. This he took from Colossians 1:12-20 as did Origen for his position. He had no problem with the Word existing before the incarnation, but declared that the Word had been created before all other things. The Popular phrase among Arians was this motto: “there was when He was not.” This is due to the concept of “Son” used by Pauline writings as being the creator of all things. The council of Nicea declared Arius a heretic and developed a creed which declared that Jesus Christ was one substance, homoousios, with the Father. This is proven by the fact that in the Nicean Creed is no mention of “the Word” proper at all, but the Son, and so the last paragraph of the Nicean Creed says the following: “but those who say that there was when he was not, and that before being begotten he was not, or that he came from that which was not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousia), or that he is created, or mutable, these the catholic church anathemizes.” The issue in fact is that the theologians equated the eternal Word with the Son, and so to not lose the eternal Word thay made the Son Eternal. Arius was deemed a heretic. While the Apostles’ Creed emphasizes the fact that Jesus did not simply appear on earth but was in fact born in the flesh (to stand against both Marcion and Gnosticism), the Nicean Creed made the Son of God eternal.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics Blog 6 The Godhead: an Analogous Representation Picture if you will, not a form of a man on a throne, with another man sitting at His side, but rather an Eternal Body of formless “Water”. This “Water” is completely happy and satisfied with It-self and has need of nothing. It loves to revel in Its own glory. It decided to create things like unto It-self, but when they are created Its glory must be hidden from them, for they cannot take it. Its glory is to them a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24), not that it would destroy them, but It is too bright and too holy even for them. So the “Water” surrounded It-self with darkness and thick clouds (Psalm 18:11) When we remember that the “Water” is surrounded by the fire, then we remember that boiling “Water” produces “Water Vapor”. Now the “Vapor” is still the “Water”, just in a different state, being invisible as well as form-less and space-less, making it possible for the “Water Vapor” to be everywhere simultaneously. It is the “Water” in essence, but not in form. They are one, and yet two. We must remember that God’s throne is called His holy mountain. Therefore, let us think of a mountain top which is surrounded by darkness and thick clouds, which are fiery and very tempestuous (Psalm 18:11; 50:3; 97:1-7). The Glory of God can be likened to everlasting burnings (Isaiah 33:14). Remember also that the “Water” is a boiling hot substance, producing a gaseous invisible “Water Vapor”. The beings created cannot enter into this cloud. The Glory of the “Water” cannot be viewed or understood by the created beings. Therefore, in order for the “Eternal Water and Vapor” to interact with Its creatures, in order them to understand It better, It condenses every attribute of Themself into a form that Their creatures can understand, and sends It out below the fire, where It cools, becoming an “Ice” form of the created beings. When the creatures see It, they think It is one of them, but in actuality the “Ice” proceed forth and came from the bosom of the “Water”, to declare, show forth, explain, praise, and speak for the “Water”. So now we have the “Eternal Water, Vapor, and Ice”. All are the “Water” in Essence, but not in form. Each differs in function, but All are one substance, essentially united in thought, motive, and desire. They also can “merge” back into Each Other at anytime, exchanging “fluid” (substance and essence) between each other, and yet they will still retain their individuality in unity. The “Water” boiling would be The First Person of the Godhead, the “Water Vapor” would be the Third Person of the Godhead, and the “Water Ice” form would be the Second Person of the Godhead. They are One in Divine Essence, but different in form, role, and function. They are the same yet different. This seems to be the concept that the eastern theologians are going for. So on the one hand western theology and wording lends to Arianism, while eastern theology and wording could lead to modalism.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i #6 In the book, Understanding Scripture, Lael Caesar contributes to the fascinating discussion on Hermeneutics and Culture. Reflecting on what Caesar wrote about the understanding of God among people who suffer oppression, I recalled from experience how powerful it is to hear a sermon by someone who God delivered from suffering. I have heard the powerful testimonies of those who have been delivered by God from various forms of oppression, such as color-based racism and gender-based prejudices, stirring my soul to believe that my God could deliver me too from trials and problems that would otherwise oppress me too. Yet I have heard similar sermons preached from the pulpit that are based on a theology of God dependent on human suffering. That is, such a theology of God is so incredibly held on to by the oppressed in the context of his or her oppression that God is not explored outside the realm of suffering. Personal experience or cultural roots of oppression would then interpret biblical passages, such as Romans 5:20, to mean that grace is dependent on sin in order to abound, and abound all the more. Without the proper hermeneutics to distinguish what is biblical from cultural, a theology could develop among the oppressed, that God is who He is because of our sufferings. If proper hermeneutics were to be applied, personal experience or cultural roots would not explain the Word of God but the other way around, and oppressed theology would understand that grace does not depend on suffering in order to exist.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i #3 (My numbering was off and I skipped from 2 to 4)
In his chapter “Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics” in the book, Understanding Scripture, Ron du Preez concludes that the goal of Christian ethics is character development. Without disagreeing, I add for clarification a few more words to his conclusion. While the study, understanding, and practice of Christian ethics helps with character development, the restoring of the image of God in our character is not the result or work of any science, study, or human somebody; It is the work of God and God alone. Not that Ron du Preez would disagree with my clarifying statement but it is a significant point that is left unmentioned. I believe it is a significant point to mention because many Seventh-day Adventist Christians study ethics as if the development of their character depended on various works or deeds of their own, such as the scrutinized examination of moral/ethical science, to help God in His work of sanctification. Yes, it is necessary for the health of a relationship with Christ to examine the Word of God but it is not in the examining of the Word of God that our character develops. Our character develops because of Jesus. With our eyes on Jesus, we naturally become changed by beholding Him. But even still, it is not in the reading of the Bible or the state of our eyes that changes us. Rather, it is the One our eyes behold that does. It is the One the Bible tells us more of that develops our character. It is all Jesus and Jesus alone.
Response to Denilson Reis from his Oct. 31 comment on chapter 15 of Understanding Scripture.
Good question! Isn't it bewildering how the Word of God can be preached with the same power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit yet be received by one while rejected by another? Not that your friend whose 'heart was not burning' rejected the sermon in your illustration but how even the, perhaps, indifference stands in stark contrast to the experience of the one whose heart did, indeed, burn and received the power of the Word.
Wow, I haven't really thought about that. Hmm. Could it be, perhaps, that the absence or scarcity of the divine Father/Son analogy in the Old Testament is because that was exactly what the cross and Christ's life was to reveal? The Old Testament records prophecy of a Son that the New Testament records as the Son that revealed to us the Father. I'll have to keep thinking about this one! Love it. Thanks for sharing!
Elliot Lee, assignment 5: I appreciated the thoughts on interpreting allegory in Ch. 13 of Reid. I realized that sometimes I assume that all parables are allegorical, when that is not true. Seems like a lot of parables are there mainly to get the end point of the story across, rather than attach meanings to all the details. Furthermore, it's not honest to give meanings to the details that are not supplied by the Bible itself.
I also appreciated the chapter's section on Old Testament parables. So often when I think of parables I think only of the ones Jesus told, but now that I have it in mind I will have to be more alert for parables when reading the Old Testament. I don't think anyone could use parables as well as Jesus, though!
Elliot Lee, assignment 6: Reading ch 16 of Reid, I could relate to the "sincere-but-confused" believer described in the introduction. Sometimes it seems that the do's-and-don'ts of the Bible can be misunderstood on either side of the road - either taking every last command too personally and literally, or telling oneself "that was for them - but it doesn't apply to me". Add to this the apparent moral contradictions of Bible narrative, and it's easy to go astray without God's help. The chapter provides a good framework for interpreting the various moral issues dealt with in the Bible.
Reflection Assng. # 6 My reading on hermeneutics and culture helped me gain a more balanced approach and view on the interpretation of scripture. Specifically, I found it an important thing to learn that despite the fact that personal presuppositions do not determine what reality is, it has the power to influence the way an individual experiences that which is reality. This is the reason why one should be careful with the approach he/she gives to scripture to help avoid the tendency to re-shape our theology and understanding of God based on wrong cultural biases. One’s culture whether good or not should not be allowed to determine what the bible says or how it ought to be understood. If this takes place, the bible looses its place as the word of God that is given to teach and correct in righteousness and perfection. The word should be allowed to stand above culture and thereby as God’s standard of living. Personal experiences on the other hand should not be taken as the guide by which scripture should be interpreted. Even if the bible can be applied to personal situations, and addresses different circumstances in life, care should be exercised to guard against over-emphasizing one teaching of it at the loss of the holistic view of scripture.
Comment on Elloit Lee’s post#3 As Elliot says, I find it important to bear in mind the main point of the parable and thereby doing away with a tendency to add extra meanings into the single and main idea being addressed. Avoiding that as one does interpretation of parables may end up erroneous.
Elliot Lee, response to Samuel Nyarige: The key in this class for me in making sense of the nature of Christ question was realizing that the "was He pre-fall or post-fall?" question was in many ways the same question as "was He human or divine?" and that the answer could be "both".
Elliot Lee, response to Eddly Benoit #5: Agree on the last point about Jesus being the focus. It's easy to get caught up in the beasts and forget that Rev 1:1 essentially says that the book is a "Revealing of Jesus Christ".
Branden Stoltz Response to Eddly Bennoit in 1st Reflection for Nov. Eddly, your post made me think of something, does Jesus' use of parables for the reason that some will understand but others will not serve to keep people from knowing the Truth of the Kingdom of God? I guess your highlighting revealed my presupposition that God wants everyone know the Truth, but for whatever reason, He didn't teach so everyone would understand. My background is in teaching, and not leaving anyone behind is always a teacher's goal. But for Jesus, the Master Teacher, He apparently had a different standard to teach to.
Blog # 5 Hermeneutical Research Method By Alexis Rivera
Today we discussed the hermeneutical issue of 1 Corinthians 11 in which Paul shares his thoughts on whether it is appropriate or inappropriate to have a man’s/woman’s head covered or uncovered in the church. I have at times heard the entire passage (from verse 2-16) misused to “prove” that which the text was not intended for. (examples such as men should have authority over women or women should not cut their hair because it is a sign of immodesty etc). I readily admit to not really understanding what this text meant up until this point, I felt challenged by it since it was surrounded by so much controversy. But through this class I have learned a few things about taking on controversial texts.
The first is not to read the text out of context, but read the entire passage in order to understand the intent of the author. Second is to look at the cultural significance of the authors words, third to read between the lines of a text and look at implied suggestions (although this must be used with caution because it may lead to misinterpretation) fourth, to study many different viewpoints on the passage and fifth to come up with a conclusion as based on the above studies.
Now, I have not done this yet with this text, although I intend to. The point I want to make is simply this: so often I have settled for what people say about a text rather than thinking on matters for myself. This class has been one that has shaken me to the core because it messed up my traditional way of thinking and forced me to re-evaluate the way I studied scripture. I have found that the best way to do good hermeneutics is to simply start with a blank piece of paper and the passage itself: to see what the passage says to me, then ask questions about that passage and seek answers to those questions. Through this I can come up with an un-biased conclusion, or at least a conclusion that is not built up on someone else’s opinions: and I definitely want to do that with this text as with many others that are on my question mark list!
For this assignment I would like to discuss what I think we should have covered in this class that we didn’t get to because of so much dialogue. Don’t get me wrong; I enjoyed the dialogue. I think dialogue is necessary in a class like this and I very much appreciated the way Dr. Hanna pushed us to consider issues and questions before coming to a position. However, I think it would have been good if we had gone over different methods of hermeneutics and discussed their place in Seventh-day Adventist biblical studies. These criticisms (or if you like, “analysis’”) include three main types: historical criticism that focuses on the world behind the text, literary criticism that focuses on the world in the text, and reader-response criticism that focuses on the reader of the text. This could be illustrated by a painting; the one who studies the history behind the creation of the painting, the one who studies the way the details of the painting itself, and the one who studies the impressions people have about the painting. Historical criticism, as we studied in class, has been criticized by many as not studying the text itself and making it irrelevant to people’s lives now so many have moved to different types of critical analysis of Scripture. However, scholars appreciate what historical criticism has contributed to biblical scholarship, and social-scientific criticism arose from historical criticism as a method of studying the world behind the text without the same modernist presuppositions. Literary criticism is a method that looks at the flow of the text, very much influenced by literary criticism of other types of literature. One example of literary criticism is narrative criticism that focuses on the elements of the story such as characters, plot, setting, introduction, climax and resolution, interpolation, etc. This type of criticism is particularly helpful for narratives such as the gospels. Finally, reader-response criticism includes feminist and womanist criticism, and postcolonial criticism. This is the most recent form of biblical studies. This includes reconstruction and resisting readings. For example, a feminist critic may read the text about the woman at the well, one which the woman is supposedly a prostitute and realize that the text does not say this at all. She will reconstruct the text by bringing out the fact that she was not necessarily the sinning but the “sinned against.” She may resist a negative passage such as the narrative of the concubine who was violently gang-raped and then brutally murdered. These approaches to biblical studies I believe are valuable for us as Adventists to acknowledge and perhaps utilize. We should at least be aware of the conversations going on in biblical studies and learn from the different approaches out there.
Comment @ Bigogo Enoch: I appreciated you bringing up the issue of cultural presuppositions and their role in biblical interpretation. I have been thinking on this issue as well. I wonder if any one of us can every shed our cultural biases or if they are just a part of who we are? Maybe the Bible can change certain cultural biases such as hate towards certain people turned to love and care for all. But I wonder if we can ever truly be free from our cultural presuppositions. Perhaps all we can do is acknowledge that they exist and try to challenge them through interacting with the larger community of faith and learning what they see from the same texts we read and how these readings challenge our cultural presuppositions
Renee Sims Responding to Shiphrah Fepulea'i 11/12 posting re: The Natural and The Spiritual . I really appreciated your thought Shiphrah. It is so important to fully understand how deeply the new age movement have worked it's way into our culture. As a nurse it was difficult for me to read the comment the presenter made because I have cared for many stroke patient who did not revel in the thought that they would be able to live in another existence . That is foolishness. God created our body to be dependent on each part . Yes the left hemisphere controls the right and visa versa but one still struggles tremendously when the both part are not working in unity.
It is the same with the Natural and the Spiritual . When we are in Christ they are intermingled ( in my opinion). Our Christian experience effects every facet of our lives . Thanks for sharing .
Renee D. Sims ,Response #2 Responding to Alexis' post 11/30 on the class discussion for today .
I too have been challenged by this class in regards to my interaction with the Bible . I so agree with your statement about just taking the word and a blank piece of paper and allowing the text to speak. Too many times we (as you stated) have others opinions/ thought regarding a text in our minds and the presupposition superimposes itself onto the text . This should not be . I'll be doing as you Alexis, finding my blank sheet, pencil and the word. Speak Jesus .
Branden Stoltz Last Comment for November The issues discussed and read for this class have done wonders for my faith and has developed my understanding and reading of the Bible. First, I understand that I must be much more concise in my words when articulating my thoughts, which is a skill I realize I lack but still need to practice and develop. I now see that it is essential that I am eventually able to say what I think clearly for the benefit of others and of my own learning. Part of this skill is to read the Bible more closely, because I now realize how much we can easily read into the text. Since we all have our presuppositions, we must acknowledge them and articulate them so we are not in the end fooling ourselves into a false understanding of Scripture and faith. The most incredible and thrilling thing i have seen through this class has been the complete integrity of the Bible and of Ellen White, of Scripture and of nature, and of God's revelations of Himself. The Bible does not need help to explain itself, but rather it is us who need help to more closely search out the already intricate truth laid out inside of its pages. God is amazing and patient and generous to us, His creatures, for us to know Him.
Renee Sims November review #1-The Cosmic Christ Chapter 7 - Are EGW writings Christ- Centered?
The author does a good job of setting forth the social nature of the Godhead within Scripture and through the eyes of EGW. From this chapter it is clear that Ellen White's focus was always Christocentric .She was ever turning her reader/ hearer to Christ .
In the latter portion of the chapter Mrs. Whites views own Christ humanity.Divinity were very insightful.On pg93 it states "...every church member should feel and interest in all that concerns the human brotherhood as well as the brotherhood in Christ. Why? It is because Christ has so identified with all humanity that we should be just as concerned for those outside the faith as within. It should be our goal to make sure that our churches have healthy social interaction within and outside our doors.
Renee D.Sims . Responding to Branden's last post for November.
Amen:)
I too struggle with clarity of speech but it is so important so that as you stated"it is essential that I am eventually able to say what I think clearly for the benefit of others and of my own learning."
Renee D.Sims November reflection #2 Understanding Scripture . Chapter 15 Hermeneutics and Culture by Dr.Lael Caesar.
I must be honest and state that this was the first chapter that I read in this book ..lol. I was interested in what Dr. Caesar had to say on this topic. When looking at Black Theology I must say that I have always felt that the journey , experiences and circumstance of people of African decent closely resembles that of the Jewish people during their time in Egypt. The cry of the old slave and those during the civil rights movement was for justice from the God who delivered Moses and Daniel. If he could do it for them , why not us? Is this desire wrong in and of itself.
I was also intrigued with Ng'weshemi's view on Christian Conversion . Caesar states that Ng'weshemi believes that Black Liberation theology is a "natural and logical reaction against this dehumanizing of the African humanity through Christian conversion". I personally believe that it is not Christianity which dehumanizes the evangelized but the evangelist. When one group feels that their way is the right way and is not willing to minister in context , then we should expect these issues ( alternate theologies) to arise. God made mankind unique and our relationship to Him culturally can be just as diverse as long as we remain true to biblical truth . As long as people are( and continue to be ) subjugated by the hand of religion this tension will continue. I agree with Dr. Caesar's closing statement " Disoriented humanity must recover the indispensable truth of its origin at the hand of a loving Creator God . Only when viewed from this perspective can Christ's salvation appear to in its true majesty. To reach these goals requires the firmest adherence to the principle of sola scripture" . There is much work still for the Adventist church and the global body of Christ to do...
Understanding Scripture, chap. 6: Assign 5 Many Christians read the Bible and yet are ignorant of the process of transmission that allowed us have them for reading and study. This chapter deals with that process associated in academic circles as canonicity. The canon of Scripture refer to the body of texts that have been measured and found worthy of inclusion into the in a collection of texts associated with the Scripture. This chapter explores the origin and acceptance of the canon. He concludes that although council’s, such as the one in Jamnia, in which rabbis discussed the canonicity of Old Testament books; and early Christian Church Fathers adhered to books they deemed to be more trustworthy, the role of the Church in the process of canonicity was merely to confirm and ratify books already in use. The canon was based on both the OT/Jewish and NT/Christian communities’ sense of inspiration. The writings that proved to be inspired were included. This is important to note. The process that led to arrangement of the canon was motivated by an interest in a “Thus saith the Lord.”
Understanding Scripture, chap. 7, Assign 6 The process of coming to a clear understanding Scripture is difficult. This chapter gives tips to guide in the process of understanding God’s Word. The author explains the historical-biblical method which looks carefully at the Bible but assumes its claims are correct. This stands in contrast to the historical-critical method which is founded on some other basic assumptions. Interpretation presents several challenges in a contemporary world. We are separated by context, language and presuppositions from characters and the audience in the Bible. For that reason it is necessary for us follow a set of steps to bring us up to pace with the mind of the Bible writers and the meaning they intend to convey. This process is called exegesis. It brings us in touch with the biblical time. Biblical interpretation is a spiritual process and by necessity requires a spiritual attitude. We start with PRAYER. READING AND accurate TRANSLATION naturally follow. From there context and careful textual ANALYSIS should produce the THEOLOGICAL idea. APPLICATION is probably the most essential part of the process because the interpreter is forced to see how ancient truths work in today’s world. The use of RESOURCES and TIME in the text only help in the formation of better conclusions about the text.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Appendix B Part I
Angel M. Rodriguez begins his analysis of this topic by suggesting foundational principles on which to base ones exegetical analysis of the biblical text. Along with these basic principles Rodriguez identifies what he refers to as nature, authority, and purpose for being the basis for the Adventist high view of the bible and its message. With this as his spring board he argues persuasively for a clear hermeneutic that is biblically based and logically sound. He then moves to a brief review of his subject by commenting on the use of the Historical-Critical method of interpretation by Adventist Scholars. He divides their use into two categories of theoretical and practical analysis, which he discerns as being the basic crux of the matter. That is that one cannot properly separate his theoretical presuppositions from his practical methodology. He questions the plausibility or feasibility for that matter of even proposing such as theory. From his perspective theory and practice are one and the same and as such must be founded on common ground in order for it to remain both logical and consistent. From there he offers a case study on what he considers to be foundational areas of Adventist Theology: Creation, Law and Prophecy. He demonstrates very convincingly how in each one of these areas of Adventist interpretation that an Historical-Critical Method in its modified form still fails to remain faithful to the biblical text in its original form and meaning. Such a departure he suggests would not benefit the church as it takes us away from our purpose and identity in proclaiming the last message of salvation and judgment to the world through the proclamation of the three angel’s message. I agree with the author in many of his convictions about the present modified use of the Historical-Critical Method, however I was not convinced that the author himself offered a more positive solution to the problems that arise from ignoring the Historical-Critical Method altogether, howbeit this does not seems to be his primary objective in this essay.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Appendix B Part II
Nevertheless a more thorough evaluation should be done in order to better understand the Historical-Critical Method and its implications for proper biblical interpretation, specifically proper principles of correlation and analogy need to be properly identified in order to be able to offer a more biblically based method that is both sound and faithful to the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the bible. Such an approach might attempt to better understand how biblical authors understood these issues within a contemporary and prophetic context and seek to apply those to our modern day issues and the contemporary challenges of biblical interpretation. I would like to make two brief suggestions for these challenges. First, as it relates to the principal of analogy (postulates that the laws of nature operating in biblical times were the same one we have today) it my be beneficial to reconsider the hypothesis that views the laws of nature as remaining constant over time and to reconsider the possibility that the laws of nature may constantly be changing as a result of our world evolving over time, by this I am not suggesting some kind of dramatic or radical change in the laws of nature but the possibility of a gradual change and evolving of natural law as a result of the process of change over time, I think their may be some possible support for this position both in scripture and in nature, but further study would need to be done for further consideration of the this proposition.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Appendix B Part III
Second, as it relates to the principle of correlation (postulates that the flow of history is the result of a cause and effect continuum), I would suggest we that we consider the possibility of the future as well as the past, since this is what we discover in the biblical worldview. Clearly this demonstrates that their was both a backward observation of the past as well a forward looking anticipation of the future, both of which helped to establish their understanding of ultimate reality. They did not limit their understanding of inquiry into only those things which they could observe from their past, but rather they sought an answer through the prophetic oracles of dreams and visions about the nature of reality both past, present and future. This view represents a challenge in the theory of cause and effect, and demonstrates that all causes are simply the effect of God the First Cause, which continues to cause all effects according to His divine and sovereign will. This perspective enabled them to recognize that God could do something in both the present and the future that had never been seen or done before. This open view of the cosmos enabled the biblical characters to believe by faith the living word of God, which sustained the creation and promised to recreate the cosmos and restore man to his rightful place in God’s universe. This view of reality clearly requires a different way of thinking than the present modern view of scientific observation.
Response, Assign 3 Response @ Branden Stoltz Last Comment for November I agree with you wholeheartedly. This class has caused me to be more careful with my exegesis. I feel as though the lectures and discussions have also encouraged me to be clear and honest about my thoughts. I feel comfortable saying, ‘This is how I look at this Scripture.’ This class has also taught me to scrutinize my presuppositions which can either positively or negatively influence interpretation. It is clear to me that God participates in a very humble act when He condenses the great revelation of Himself into human language for out salvation. Indeed, God is amazing!
Hey Alexis, I really enjoyed your summation of the recent class discussion concerning biblical interpretation. I too found the principles that were presented in class to be extremely helpful in my interpretation of a biblical text. In times past I used to wonder why there seemed to be so much contradiction and confusion about the bible, but its now apparent that when it comes to the interpretation of the bible there's way more opinions than answers. While we all have to wrestle with the meaning of the text, I do think some universal principles of interpretation can help us to have a more reliable approach to biblical interpretation. Unfortunately, I have found that when it comes to interpretation everyman seems to be an island unto himself, I really think there needs to be a reevaluation of such thinking and an honest attempt to create a more biblically based hermeneutic for the Christian Community (particularly Seventh-day Adventist). I personally appreciate the 5 principles which you offered in your comment and think they are a good starting point for any person desiring to engage the biblical text.
Assignment no3 Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor Presumption in the interpretation of scriptures by Frank Hassel. When I was reading this chapter I discovered the following insights: The hermeneutical challenges- interpreters of the bible can not divest themselves from their own past experiences, resident ides and pre conceived notions and opinions. A God centered theology demands a God centered methodology. Any pre-understanding such as evolution, that questions denies the supernatural dimensions clearly defines in the scripture is alien to the bible and will not come to grips with the subject matter of God’s word. Humans are created to understand, hence they are accountable for their creator, but sin has marred and distorted the image of God in man, it has not come completely destroyed it. Sin is the desire to cross the boundaries of creature hood relationship in attempt to become like God, a rapture of the essential creator-creature relationship and a desire to live an independent, ego-centric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature, and our reasoning powers and capability of understanding. Effects of sin on interpretation: Because of sin our minds have become corrupted and thereby closed to God’s truth Pride –our pride causes us to be spiritual blind, unable to recognize God’s revelation to us Self-deception- sin has affected all our human existence, including thinking and desiring the proper understanding of God’s written word 2timothy 4:3-4 Disobedience –the unwillingness to follow God’s revealed will, affects our ability to understand scripture correctly. Hermeneutical principles Scripture interprets scriptures-solar scriptura-Isaiah 8:20 Tota scriptura john 5:39-context of the scripture passage, the clarity of the scripture, the clarity of the scripture and of the Bible translations, the clarity of the scripture and the difficult passages 2peter3:16 Prima scriptura The relationship between Christ and the scripture: The living and the speaking God of the scripture has chosen to reveal Him through the word. It seems one has to believe scripture before one can believe the Christ of scripture. The word incarnate can not be separated from the word in scripture (Holy Scripture) All scripture pointed to Him (like 24:25-27), all scripture testifies of Him 9JOHN 5; 39) THUS SOLAR SCRIPTURA WITHOUT CHRST IS EMPTY1!!
Assignment no3 Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor Presumption in the interpretation of scriptures by Frank Hassel. When I was reading this chapter I discovered the following insights: The hermeneutical challenges- interpreters of the bible can not divest themselves from their own past experiences, resident ides and pre conceived notions and opinions. A God centered theology demands a God centered methodology. Any pre-understanding such as evolution, that questions denies the supernatural dimensions clearly defines in the scripture is alien to the bible and will not come to grips with the subject matter of God’s word. Humans are created to understand, hence they are accountable for their creator, but sin has marred and distorted the image of God in man, it has not come completely destroyed it. Sin is the desire to cross the boundaries of creature hood relationship in attempt to become like God, a rapture of the essential creator-creature relationship and a desire to live an independent, ego-centric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature, and our reasoning powers and capability of understanding. Effects of sin on interpretation: Because of sin our minds have become corrupted and thereby closed to God’s truth Pride –our pride causes us to be spiritual blind, unable to recognize God’s revelation to us Self-deception- sin has affected all our human existence, including thinking and desiring the proper understanding of God’s written word 2timothy 4:3-4 Disobedience –the unwillingness to follow God’s revealed will, affects our ability to understand scripture correctly. Hermeneutical principles Scripture interprets scriptures-solar scriptura-Isaiah 8:20 Tota scriptura john 5:39-context of the scripture passage, the clarity of the scripture, the clarity of the scripture and of the Bible translations, the clarity of the scripture and the difficult passages 2peter3:16 Prima scriptura The relationship between Christ and the scripture: The living and the speaking God of the scripture has chosen to reveal Him through the word. It seems one has to believe scripture before one can believe the Christ of scripture. The word incarnate can not be separated from the word in scripture (Holy Scripture) All scripture pointed to Him (like 24:25-27), all scripture testifies of Him 9JOHN 5; 39) THUS SOLAR SCRIPTURA WITHOUT CHRST IS EMPTY1!!
Assignment no3 Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor Presumption in the interpretation of scriptures by Frank Hassel. When I was reading this chapter I discovered the following insights: The hermeneutical challenges- interpreters of the bible can not divest themselves from their own past experiences, resident ides and pre conceived notions and opinions. A God centered theology demands a God centered methodology. Any pre-understanding such as evolution, that questions denies the supernatural dimensions clearly defines in the scripture is alien to the bible and will not come to grips with the subject matter of God’s word. Humans are created to understand, hence they are accountable for their creator, but sin has marred and distorted the image of God in man, it has not come completely destroyed it. Sin is the desire to cross the boundaries of creature hood relationship in attempt to become like God, a rapture of the essential creator-creature relationship and a desire to live an independent, ego-centric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature, and our reasoning powers and capability of understanding. Effects of sin on interpretation: Because of sin our minds have become corrupted and thereby closed to God’s truth Pride –our pride causes us to be spiritual blind, unable to recognize God’s revelation to us Self-deception- sin has affected all our human existence, including thinking and desiring the proper understanding of God’s written word 2timothy 4:3-4 Disobedience –the unwillingness to follow God’s revealed will, affects our ability to understand scripture correctly. Hermeneutical principles Scripture interprets scriptures-solar scriptura-Isaiah 8:20 Tota scriptura john 5:39-context of the scripture passage, the clarity of the scripture, the clarity of the scripture and of the Bible translations, the clarity of the scripture and the difficult passages 2peter3:16 Prima scriptura The relationship between Christ and the scripture: The living and the speaking God of the scripture has chosen to reveal Him through the word. It seems one has to believe scripture before one can believe the Christ of scripture. The word incarnate can not be separated from the word in scripture (Holy Scripture) All scripture pointed to Him (like 24:25-27), all scripture testifies of Him 9JOHN 5; 39) THUS SOLAR SCRIPTURA WITHOUT CHRST IS EMPTY1!!
Assignment no 4 Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor Revelation and inspiration- In reading this chapter I discovered the following truths: The biblical authors are considered to be to be used by God to write the scriptures.2timothy3:15-17; 2peter20, 21 God inspired them and the wrote in the human language. He imbued the prophet’s minds with thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment of their task also watched over them in their attempt to express infinite ideas and embody them in infinite vihecles’of human language. The writers of the bible were God’s pen men not His pen (1sm21). The divine guidance or moving acted directly on human agency in the R-I Process. this divine guiding or moving of human agencies followed the various ways of divine providence working within the flux of historical events, not as God’s timeless,absolute,sovereign power working by way of eternal decrees and overruling the freedom of biblical writers. God guided and moving the reception of the information of ideas in the biblical writers by means of historical process of divine cognitive revelation given in a diversity of patterns .the divine guidance and moving of human agencies embraced multiple patterns of divine operations, both in the revelation and inspirations process Heb.1:1. The whole scripture was both revealed and inspired. In this sense the biblical model R-I is plenary, for it embraces the entirety of the scripture. The spirit’s guidance or moving harnessed the freedom and literacy of human agencies in their historical and scriptural development. Because guidance of the Holy Spirit respected human modes of thinking and writing, we should not expect of find in scripture the absolute perfection that belong s to the inner life of trinity. Although divine guidance and moving operated on human agencies through them it reached the words of the scriptures. In this sense the biblical model of R-I is verbal. Divine guidance in the process of writing did not assure absolute divine perfection, but in their entirety the scriptures truthfully and trustworthy represent God’s teachings, will and works. In short, God, not the human writers, is the author of scripture in the sense that He is the source of content, action and the interpretation.
Assignment no5 Understanding the scripture, an Adventist approach, by George W.Reid, editor
The authority of the scripture: After reading this chapter is discovered the following truths: The scripture is God’s written word. It is God’s oracles. The Old Testament books consist of the three sections, the laws, prophets and the writing... Jesus used the word “it is written” to show unquestionable authority mathew4:4; 7’10. For Him scripture was the word of God that can not be broken John 10:28. Jesus Himself divine authority math 28:28. Because the scriptures came to us as the oracles of God, they speak with divine authority. Because He is the author and creator, God’s authority stands supreme over all His creatures and all creature authority is subordinated to the authority of the creator. God’s authority is eternal and supreme Isaiah 40:25-28. God’s authority is primarily based on divine love and defined by truth so the scripture speak to us with the same authority... The union of divine, and human manifests in Christ’s, exists also in the Bible. The truths revealed are all given by inspiration of God yet they are expressed in the words of men and adopted to human need……5T747
Assignment no 6 Understanding the scripture, an Adventist approach, by George W.Reid, Editor The text and the canon of the scripture- after reading this chapter I discovered the following truths: The canon means a reed, measured rod, or even curtain rod, which I turn, is connected to Hebrew word qanesh.1Kings 14:15. A canon is a body of texts that has been measured and found worth of inclusion in a collection of texts with a binding authority for religious community. It must be connected to the concept of scripture as well as inspiration 2Tim3:16. The criteria for the process of canonization are 1.prophetitic origin 2.authorship-the author have to be known 3.in the new testament apostolicity 4.antiquity 56.orthordox-congruence with what has already been revealed. 6. Inspiration
In this chapter, Hanna brings together some of Ellen White’s statements that are supportive of much of what he has been saying the book, including the harmony between nature and scripture, the way that nature reveals God, and that nature is permeated with the law of God.
Because of my psychology background, I found this quotation especially interesting, “the brain nerves... are the medium through which heaven communicates with man” (Ed 209). I remember in my psychology classes how they talked about the issue between soul and mind, assuming that religious people made a distinction between the two, and that modern neural-psychology proved how wrong that view was.
Being Adventist, I never really believed in that distinction in the first place. That is just one of the reasons I am so grateful for our theology. But it is something else to read to quote in which Ellen White makes that statement directly about the neurons in the brain even making it more than 100 years ago. Think of the state of religion and science at the time. She truly was amazing.
In this area at least, there doesn’t need to be a conflict between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible that the maker of the brain communicates with the person with that brain.
But this quote brings me to another question, is this referring to the process of inspiration as in what the bible writers experienced? Or is it referring to more to common Christian experience? In the context, it appears to be referring to common Christian experience. But maybe he really does inspire you and I as we do our devotions in the same exact way he inspired the Psalmists and even the prophets.
October Assignment #3 Chapter 2 Faith, reason, and the Holy Spirit Hermeneutics As I read the chapter written by our very own professor Dr. Baldwin I learned a thing or two about the process of hermeneutics. I have a tendency and I guess you may say a presumption to put faith easily ahead of reason without even thinking about the two subjects. After reading the chapter on “Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics” I have more of a, no pun intended, reason to put faith ahead of reason. I cannot stay right at just the notion of faith over reason either. There is more a spiritual power in faith that is at hand in the role of hermeneutics. Baldwin gave a good reason that reason alone is not the answer. We live in a fallen world where there are positive aids and negative aids. We may say that angels help us, but there are both good angels and bad angels (called demons) that attribute to our decision process. Then there is a mighty Helper namely the Holy Spirit that helps with the hermeneutics of the scripture. We are fallen beings ourselves and as Dr. Baldwin pointed out we have a “veiled mind.” The Holy Spirit then helps us with the interpretation of the spiritual things we need to discern. IN all this discussion we still cannot put away reason altogether. Reason is still valuable in the response process. The reasoning ensures the answer is not blindly followed, but instead has power of choice and freedom in the decision made as one’s own.
Chapter 3 Assignment #4 I have heard a great share of this class talk about the presuppositions that one has when they enter into the hermeneutics of Scripture. I have to be honest that I have not thought of my presuppositions as much as this class has thought of people using. The presupposition I may have is that I may not think I have pre-understanding concepts. I remember once when I was in a philosophy class at Union College the teacher told me that since I as Catholic that I would have Catholic Seventh-day Adventist thoughts. That every time I dealt with matters in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination I would have Catholic presuppositions. The chapter here talks about how these are inseparable from our interpretations. This is a scary thought for me seeing that my pre-understandings are in contrast for the most part in my choice as to be a Seventh-day Adventist. The writer of this chapter, Dr. Hasel, did give me a glimmer of hope; the role of the Holy Spirit in the acknowledging my presuppositions and modifying and reshaping of these pre-understandings. The chapter also put together a contrast of the hermeneutical effects of sin and how we need necessary hermeneutical attitudes in interpreting the Scripture. These are very helpful to understand where the presuppositions come from and how to deal with them through the interpretation of the Scripture.
October response to Denilson Reis said... On the Chapter VII That was a very interesting take on the “burning heart.” I too believe the Holy Spirit has the major role in this area. The person also has a role as a response to the interpreter. Another variable in the experience may be the pre-experiences of an individual. The “burning heart” is a difficult rating device. A person that keeps to himself/herself may not show a “burning heart” moment intensely. The blog was good. I would like to know more about the “burning heart” experience in different situations.
November Assignment #5 Chapter 14 “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic” by Jon K. Paulien There is a great deal of emphasis on the apocalyptic views in the Seventh-day Adventist church. The church was founded on these principles of biblical apocalyptic interpretations. The four reasons that were introduced in the beginning of this chapter were profound to me. The urgency factor was clearly behind the focus of this principle to be presented to the world. The world has changed in the times and reactions since the start of this denomination. We are still in a very great need for the correct understanding of biblical apocalypse. The people have changed and so have the approaches to the hermeneutics of biblical apocalyptic. The writer of this chapter went into a great depth to help the reader understand the necessity of the correct understanding of the biblical apocalyptic. There were many tools and approaches that were helpful to the hermeneutical process of the apocalypse. The first and the main is the deciphering the type of prophecy that is dealt with. There are many types of prophecies. The main difference of the two types is the response to the prophecy. The general prophecy is a conditional prophecy. The prophecy is based on the conditional response of the individuals affected by the prophecy. On the other hand the apocalyptic prophecy results in an unconditional in its nature. The rest of the chapter gives good tools on the interpreting process of the prophecy. The best rule I saw was the use of prayer and distrusting self. These were very good aids in helping one come to a correct understanding in their hermeneutics of biblical apocalyptic.
November 2 Assignment #6 Chapter 17 “Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics” by Gerhard Pfandl This chapter gave some great insights to the use of Ellen G. White. The writer suggests we use the same hermeneutics that we use on the Bible on her writings. I think this is a good idea. There is much misinterpretations that may be avoided by the use of this suggestion. I like the use of the context of Ellen White’s writings. The time of her writings definitely have an impact on the hermeneutics of the writing. The application to one time period may be drastic to another time period. The example of the horse was very plain. I would not expect that everyone should teach their daughter to ride a horse to be fairly equipped to make it in a city of the size of Los Angeles, California. The contexts of her writings are great tools to avoid misguided uses of her writings. The limitations in the use of her writings are also very essential in the hermeneutics of Ellen White’s writings and the Bible for that fact. The two writings were never to be the basis for history as the writer pointed out. There are historical errors in the writings of Ellen White and the Bible. The writers of the Bible in various parts did not correctly write the history of the event. The Bible is in no way less of truth from this fact. The Bible still has great gems for salvation which is the intention of the Bible, not history. The same may be said of Ellen White’s writings. We would be best suited to learn the tools of hermeneutics to understand correctly the light from Ellen White.
November response Response to Shiphrah Fepulea'i said...
Shiphrah the blog you wrote on ethics was inspiring. I have to admit that the point of view that was clarified would help me enjoy ethics more. I have had a dislike for ethics once I took the class on ethics at Union College. The fact that ethics appears to be self-orientated in human sense may be the problem I have with ethics. I have yet to take an ethics class here at Andrews. In all honesty I am also terrified at the eventual truth that I will have to take a class in ethics to graduate. I am comforted by the suggested idea of ethics as Christ-centered. Have you taken an ethics class yet? Which one do you suggest I try or stay away from?
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 06 December 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #5: MEET ‘EM WHERE THEY’RE AT
In the book, “Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach” edited by George W. Reid, there is a chapter entitled, “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic” by Jon K. Paulien. In this chapter talks about how when it comes to interpreting the Bible, we need to keep in mind that God meets us where we are. “Scripture was given in the time, place, language, and cultures of specific human beings” (page 250). What if we followed God’s method of communication? What if we too were to meet people where they were? We need to talk in their language, and that goes beyond just simply English. Language is composed of a mentality. Everyone has their own culture, therefore they think in their own way. When we talk about God and the Bible, sometimes we need to use analogies that have to do with things that they can relate to. You know, the best way to be able to relate to certain types of people is to spend time with them. When we mingle with people in normal everyday settings, we can start to know what kind of mindset they have. It’s when we understand the way a person thinks can we truly communicate effectively.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 06 December 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #6: KEEP IT SIMPLE
In the book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, by Martin Frederick Hanna there is a chapter called, “Are Ellen White’s Writing’s Relevant to the cosmos?” This chapter says that Ellen White states that “the Bible is ‘perfect in its simplicity’ while it ‘does not answer [correspond completely] to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of though” (page 117). Not everything is clear in the Bible, because the Bible was written by men, and those of us who are reading it are men (or women). However, the Bible is still “perfect in its simplicity”. I think that’s a good note to end the semester. We’ve discussed a lot of questions about Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics in class and on this website. Not everything is clear, but the Bible is still “perfect in its simplicity”. Sometimes we get so caught up in the questions and over analyze things, sometimes we get ourselves confused, and sometimes we start to feel as though all this is too complicated. But we need to be able to relax and know that although the Bible is deep, it’s still simple. Let’s not over complicate things. Let’s keep it simple.
Thanks Nyarige for commenting on my post. Well, Christ possessed divinity completely. He also possessed humanity completely. He just didn't let his divinity unleash itself. I guess you can say that His divinty was clothed with humanity. They are both 100%. Like you Samuel, your 100% human. You are also 100% a student. You can be 100% in two different things. God is both 100% God and 100% man. Jesus definetly knew that He was divine. But He didn't use His divinity at all when it came to temptation or even miracles. He was just connected with His Father, like we can be. (John 5:30; 14:10) The only time He used His divinity was to forgive sins.
Assignment 3 In thinking and reflecting on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the word through which God communicates and accomplishes his will hope to understand the expression and accomplishments of God through Jesus as the revelation of God.Christ is The Creative Word in creation Physically it is the word we live in and live by, which is his word to us of his sovereignty, power, wisdom, care, love. Key text: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3 1. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6 2. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9 a. Whatever he said that that very word contain within itself the very thing he said. 3. …The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. Psalm 33:5 4. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3 5. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist. 6. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19:1-4 7. For since the creation of the world His invisible attribute are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are with are without excuse. Romans 1:20 8. Bring my sons from afar, And by daughters from the ends of the earth – everyone who is called by my name, Whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him and yes I have made Him. Isaiah 43:6, 7 9. Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it… Isaiah 42:5 10. 24 rThe God who made the world and everything in it, being sLord of heaven and earth, tdoes not live in temples made by man,2 25 nor is he served by human hands, uas though he needed anything, since he himself vgives to all mankind wlife and breath and everything. 26 And xhe made from one man every nation of mankind to live yon all the face of the earth, zhaving determined allotted periods and athe boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 bthat they should seek God, in the hope that cthey might feel their way toward him and find him. dYet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for e“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being… Acts 17:24-28
Key Point: The world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Jesus Christ) and the physical spoken words… express or speak…Christ.
Assignment 3 In thinking and reflecting on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the word through which God communicates and accomplishes his will. Hope to trace revelation of God through His Word Jesus Christ.The bible teaches that God accomplishes everything through his Living Word Jesus Christ. Firstly the bible portrays Christ as Creative Word in creation Physically that creation is God's spoken word which we live in and live by, which reveals God's sovereignty, power, wisdom, care, love.
Key text: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3 1. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6 2. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9 a. Whatever he said that very word contain within itself the very thing he said. 4. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3 5. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist. 6. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19:1-4 7. For since the creation of the world His invisible attribute are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are with are without excuse. Romans 1:20 Acts The God who made the world and everything in it, being sLord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,2 25 nor is he served by human hands, uas though he needed anything, since he himself vgives to all mankind wlife and breath and everything. 26 And xhe made from one man every nation of mankind to live yon all the face of the earth, zhaving determined allotted periods and athe boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 bthat they should seek God, in the hope that cthey might feel their way toward him and find him. dYet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for e“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being… Acts 17:24-28 Key Point: The world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Jesus Christ) and the physical spoken words… express or speak…Christ.
Assignment 3 In thinking and reflecting on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the word through which God communicates and accomplishes his will. Hope to trace revelation of God through His Word Jesus Christ.The bible teaches that God accomplishes everything through his Living Word Jesus Christ. Firstly the bible portrays Christ as Creative Word in creation Physically that creation is God's spoken word which we live in and live by, which reveals God's sovereignty, power, wisdom, care, love.
Key text: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3 1. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6 2. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9 a. Whatever he said that very word contain within itself the very thing he said. 4. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3 5. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist. 6. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19:1-4 7. For since the creation of the world His invisible attribute are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are with are without excuse. Romans 1:20 Key Point: The world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Jesus Christ) and the physical spoken words… express or speak…Christ.
Assignment 4 In scripture, Christ not only reveals God as the creative word in creation.
Secondly,Christ is The written Word in inspiration.
The written word reveals Christ the living word Jesus Christ our all and all. 1. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21 2. …the prophets….the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10 3. You study the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life and they are they that testify of me. John 5:39 Christ is The Incarnated Word in ultimate revelation and salvation Factually the word through by whose life, death, resurrection he accomplish our salvation and through who he gives us full revelation of his love. 1. And the Word became flesh and dwell among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 2. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18 3. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past, to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom he made the worlds; who being the beightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of His power. Hebrews 1:1-3
Thirdly, Christ is The proclaimed Word in proclamation and the regenerating word in conversion 1. Having been born again, not of incorruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever. 1 Peter 1:22-23 2. Now this is the word that was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:24-25 3. To them it was revealed, that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven… 1 Peter 1:12 Evangelistically the word through which the Spirit proclaims the Living Word to be received into the heart as the light and life of man. The proclaimed word is the gospel preached. The Word of the Lord is the gospel message about Jesus Christ. This Living Word can regenerate men and women. Christ is the The last Word in consummation
Climatically in Revelation,Christ is the last word by which God accomplishes eternal judgment, final redemption and global re-creation. 1. Now I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And he who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of Lord. Revelation 19:11, 13 2. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8 3. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8
Text: Luke 24:44, 45 All of scripture reveals Jesus…if we do not see him our eyes have not been opened. 1. The writings of Moses, and all the prophets points to Jesus. We can study the scripture and be blind to the person it points us to. 2. We will not see Christ in the bible until he opens our eyes to recognize that everything in scripture is about Him. Only Christ can reveal Himself to us in the Scriptures and open our eyes that we might know Him. Text: John 1:18 and 1 John 1:1, God’s Word (Jesus) is made flesh in the bible for us to hear, see, look upon and handle with our hands so that we can behold the glory of Christ in the scriptures as our means of knowing God personally. 1. In the scripture Christ is the Word made flesh, he speak to us in a language we can understand. God only speaks to us in his Word Jesus Christ who is reveal in his word the bible. a. God speaks – through His Word – revealed in the bible – inspired by the Spirit 2. God communicates the knowledge of Himself to us through his Word Jesus as revealed in scriptures. God communicates his life to us through his Word Jesus as revealed in scripture.
Assignment 7 Goal of Hermeneutics: Christ-centered Transformation
Text: John 5:39 The bible reveals Jesus – life is in him not the scripture. 1. The written word points us to Jesus so that he can give us eternal life a. Bible study that does not lead us to see Jesus means we came to an open book with a close heart. The book can be open without our hearts been opened. Come to the bible in humility with an open heart. b. Bible study that lead us to see Jesus means we came with an open heart to a closed book c. The bible does not give us eternal life it points to Christ as eternal life. We can have bible truths and be separated from The Truth that those truths reveal. We can have the literature and be separated from the life it reveals. 2. Bible study is not an end in itself but the end goal of the written word is to transform us through the living word a. The written word that does not lead to the living word simply gives us information and not transformation b. The written word that does not lead to the living word is knowledge of book and not knowing of God c. The written word that does not lead to the living word is seeing doctrines and not savoring a person
Assignment no 7 The cosmic of Christ of scripture by Dr. Martin Hanna The authority of the scripture It is true that the authority of the scripture comes only from God, because those who wrote the scripture they wrote what they were lead by the Holy spirit .they were moved by the Holy spirit although they wrote in human languages but that cant disqualify it from not having authority. In another word the word of God is both Divine and human. It gets its authority from divine part of it. thus Christ has defined His authority through scriptures. This is what makes the the scriptures to be authoritative
Assignment no 8 The cosmic Christ of the scripture by Dr. Martine Hanna Daniel 12:4- Daniel talks of the increase in both secular and sacred knowledge. That in the last day’s knowledge will increase to both the unbelievers and to the believers (saints). This knowledge it is true that it will increases in both secular and sacred knowledge. We as saints we have to integrate faith and learning. We have to go to fro to increase the knowledge of the cosmic Christ of scripture. Our theology should go to and fro in scripture as well as to and fro among scripture, Christ, and cosmos. We should increase the knowledge of the word of God. We should such the scriptures diligently! (John 5:39-40) Second we should go to and fro from scriptures to the cosmos (nature, which includes human nature) in order to increase the knowledge.
Assignment no 9 The cosmic Christ of scripture by Dr.Martin Hanna As it is in the book of scripture to be both divine and humanity, Christ also is both divine and humanity! Studying both His divinity and His humanity will help us to identify the counterfeit Christ .Mathew 24:24. We we don’t study diligently so as to know the genuine Christ of scripture are easy to be confused. Christ is fully divine because He is creator. John 1:1-14; Colossians 2:9. He is also a fully human because He was born of woman Mathew8:20; Galatians4:4 He was fully human and yet remained sinless.
The concept of the condition of the heart and its role in hermeneutics is rather astounding. When one contemplates it, it seems rather that heart purity (genuine intentions and willingness to obey) is somewhat of a prerequisite for getting deeper insights with God (John 17:7, Matt 5:8, Jeremiah 29:13). There is popular saying that says "if I tell you, I'll have to kill you." I think there's a similar philosophy with God, although His motivation for repeating such a phrase would be obviously different from its popular usage. In a sense, to want to know the deep things of God, you have to be willing to die ("be killed"). Die in the sense of dying to your selfish aspirations and selfish intentions. It's the meek that will actually receive God as their daily teachers. The proud automatically will not receive His teachings, because His teachings makes most sense when He is at the center. So, my present journey is to learn how to surrender to God most effectively and intelligibly. Hermeneutics works best when the eye is single to God's glory. When they eye is on Christ, I believe the Sprit will be working the most effectively in our lives. We are all human, and the life of faith is a learning process. I hope to learn and mature more in that realm myself.
Reading chapter 9 of Dr. Hanna’s book about “What Does the Bible Say?” has helped me to understand more about the relation of revelation in Scripture and the cosmos. On page 109, he writes, “We sometimes identify the spiritual mind with theology (the study of Scripture) and identify the natural mind with science (the study of the cosmos). Paul presents a different perspective. He does not separate the natural from the spiritual or dichotomize special revelation in Scripture and general revelation in the cosmos. The term “natural” and “spiritual” are used to distinguish false science from true science.” This is where I see the Adventists can run into trouble. Anything is that study about the Scripture, or from literal Scripture, we think is “natural.” Even though we have not understood the wholistic view of the Scripture. Let’s take psychology as an example, we are so afraid of science because it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Another reason we might be reluctant is because people out there who understand it wrongly and not according to the principles of the Scripture. These reasons alone are not enough to conclude that psychology (study of the mind) is not an important subject to learn. Many people are conscious with the term psychology, we can call it whatever we want. The fact that God has created the brain for us to use, there are things that God wants to know more about it. However, the moment we find someone else out there who is doing it wrongly, we quickly disregard it. Could it be that’s a Satan’s trap? He’ll do whatever it takes for us to not understand about God’s creation. Therefore, I believe that we ought to pay more attention to general revelation. Every time I understand more deeply about a theological thought from the Scripture is through practical encounters (general revelations). Jesus himself came and showed the people the marvelous magnificence of the nature and humans that humans have been neglected.
Psalms is one of the Christians’ most favorite books in the Scripture and it is mine also. The reason is because they are personal experiences of God’s children. Though the events are different from today’s, however, the emotions are very much the same. One thing that the author points out that is helpful for me is that we should not read too much into one single word or line, but to interprete it as a whole. Much of the psalms were written in parallel. Another challenge we may face for the interpretation of Hebrew poetry is that the figurative language is more difficult to understand than prose. We should not read it too literally. I have to admit that the background to such imagery adds interest and to study and depth to the understanding of the psalms. The descriptive emotions in psalms seem to real to me even reading them over and over again. This shows the inspiration of God for His children. Besides the Gospels, the book of Psalms was the main book that drew me closer to God when I was converted. The amazing thing is that I discover more new emotions from the psalms as my emotions attach to the words. I just want to thank God for His ways of communicate with us. Reading the psalms is one of them.
On page 60 in “Cosmic Christ,” there is a quote of Ellen White in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “We are not to praise the gospel, but [to] praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the gospel.” This is interesting because Jesus in the gospel of John was recorded to ask the Jews with similar question. The Jews thought that they understood the Scripture. The pharisees thought that they knew it all. They all thought they have interpreted the Scripture rightly and if they had kept all the laws in the Scripture [they thought] they would inherit eternal life. So in a sense the literal law had become their God instead of the God of the Scripture. Now, parallel to Adventistism, how many have idolized Ellen White. Instead of worship the God that Ellen White was commisioned to point to, many have worship that lesser light or the instrument. I thought this principle is important because any of us, at any time, in any area, can fall into temptation to worship the very own subject that points out the love of God, instead of God himself. Let’s take to health message for example. If we are not careful, we can be obsessed the details in the health principles and habits that ignores that giver of health in the first place.
On pages 310 & 311 of “Understanding Scripture,” Reid suggests general guidelines of interpretation of Scripture. One of them is Guard Against Extreme Interpretations by Work Together With People of Experience. “Let one be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren…the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for “in the multitufe of counselors there is safety”” (5T 291, 293). Besides submitting to the [Adventist] brethren, should we also submit to other Christians as well. If we have the theology that says no individual holds all the truth, could it be the same in a broader definition. Could there be something else that Adventists have not known, but are known to others? I suggest not only we cherish our values, but also be open-minded and be willingly to study what others might have understood that makes more complete in our understanding.
Assignment # 4 In light of the concept of hermeneutics, an interesting concept was mentioned. "We have to interpret whatever God reveals to us." It's an amazing responsibility when one really considers the fact that when God speaks to us, we have the responsibility for its interpretation. Interpretation is truly crucial as our interpretations can shape our lives and how we perceive reality. Thus, God's help is crucially needed. It's also interesting how God chose to use types and parables in Scripture in order to communicate His teachings. Why would He do that? Why not just say things directly? The professor mentioned a point that perhaps a reason why types were used was because they had potential for multiple fulfillments. They were not always to be tied to a specific event/context only, although they might have had a specific, time fulfillment. Hermeneutics indeed is a task that cannot be taken lightly. The “gold” hidden in the text are not just stumbled upon. It gives a new perspective on passages that seem difficult to understand at first glance. As discussed in class, sometimes these passages are signals indicating that great truths are waiting to be dug out. So many times what we get out of the text is proportional to our personal diligence, earnestness, and write employment of a faithful methodology.
Assignment # 6 Understanding Scripture – Chapter 16 “Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics” Though I only read a majority of this chapter, I appreciated much of the insight. It dealt much with analyzing and interpreting the ethics mentioned in Scripture. There were several passages actually that he wrestled with that helped bring a bit of clarity on passages that I myself was interested in. He touched on the issue with Rahab, who is seemingly praised in the Bible, although she lied and practiced deception “for a good cause.” We must note that just because something good comes out of deception doesn’t validate deception. God would rather us do what’s right, even though death may be the outcome. We cannot allow the projected outcome of a certain decision be the chief determinant in rendering obedience. He noted that although 1 Cor 10:11 mentions that the Scriptures were written for our benefit and instruction, it doesn’t mean that the Scripture endorses everything that it reports. For instance, just because David had many wives, yet was called “a man after God’s own heart”, doesn’t mean that a heart-devoted Christian is now permitted to have multiple wives. Rather, it was while he was living in conformity to God that he was called a man after God’s heart, not when he began to commit adultery. Thus, a certain level of chronological understanding can be crucial, as we understand in what time contexts were things stated. David was not always living in obedience with God at all times.
That quote indeed is powerful, that God communicates with us through our brain nerves. It startling how much the brain is important in our communion with God. Much of the time we take for granted caring for the physical body, as if our spirituality is entirely unrelated to it. We should make great effort to develop mentally for God's glory!
I remember from the Desire of Ages when Ellen White made a statement about inspiration. In the chapter dealing with the woman who washed Jesus’ feet, she notes that she was “inspired” to make such a gesture. It was an expression of her love and appreciation for Christ that brought her to make such a move, but it was also this that exited the selfish comment of Judas. However, as mentioned by Ellen White, after making such a lavish expression upon Christ before the others, she began to feel a bit embarrassed, afraid what others would think, and how here sister would censure her. She could not understand the full significance of what she did, she just obeyed the promptings of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But Mrs. White makes a crucial statement about inspiration; she says, “ Inspiration stoops to give no reason. An unseen presence, it speaks to mind and soul, and moves the heart to action. It is its own justification (Desire of Ages 560 Accessed online) That brings to light an interesting element when understanding how inspiration works, and the effects it has on individuals. Sometimes we cannot explain why we feel inspired to do this particular good deed for God, or why we feel inspired to study this particular subject for research, or even a sermon. The Holy Spirit has a mind of His of His own. Now this statement does not sanction anything that we feel that we’re inspired to do, but when we feel the burden to express our love for God and others in a Christ -like way, or to study a certain passage for research or sermon, this can be a fruit of the power of inspiration.
It's kinda makes me laugh in some ways when we know something but don't realize or act like we actually know it. For instance, I learned long ago that God revealed Himself not only through scripture, but also through nature. The apostle Paul is pretty clear about that in Romans 1 and I could see it in some ways myself. The thing was though that I never really took the time to figure out what that really meant, that God reveals Himself through nature and the cosmos, until this class and Dr. Hanna's book for class. I found it revealing how that Christ is the supreme revelation of God and then there's scripture, the church, nature, the cosmos, etc in which God also reveals Himself to us. It's kinda amazing how much God wants to reveal Himself to us, He's chosen to do it through all sorts of different ways. I also found it rather revealing that if God does not change and He has revealed Himself through many different ways, then all of them must agree on who God is since they are all accurate revelations of God. Of course this opens up the question of how do deal with the apparent discrepancies that crop up, but that's a different reflection for a different time.
So I was reflecting a little while back about figuring out how to reconcile apparent contradictory revelations of God in different areas in which He reveals Himself. For instance I was thinking about how if God reveals Himself through nature how can we know what is from God and what isn't? For instance, if I'm lying down in the soft green grass watching the clouds float by above and think about how beautiful the world is, it would be easy for me to say, “Hey, that's a revelation of how neat God is.” But let's say I look and see a beautiful fawn playing with a butterfly when suddenly a mountain lion jumps out from the brush, attacks it, snaps it neck and starts eating it in front of me. It wouldn't be so easy to say wow look how neat my God is! So how do I know that one is a revelation of God and the other isn't? Where do I get that from? Sure the sky may show a nice God. But what keeps us from saying, “no that mountain lion is a revelation of God's character?” The nearest I can figure is that even though God reveals Himself through nature, it's not enough, it's to tainted by the sin in this world. The reason I take the time to reflect on this is because someone once talked about God revealing Himself in nature and the cosmos once that it almost sounded like we didn't even need to bother reading our Bibles since God was revealing Himself through nature and even paganism! I beg to differ. While I agree that God reveals Himself through nature, I also believe that it is incomplete. I also believe that He reveals Himself through the church more completely, but not completely. I also believe even more so in Scripture and then ultimately He is revealed through Christ. Now all of this has gotten me thinking. Because the life of Christ is revealed to us through scripture that was not directly dictated by God. Is the little that has been given to us a complete revelation. I'm thinking no. I'm starting to think that our God is so awesome and so infinite, that we will spend all eternity learning more and more about our great God and how awesome He is.
a response to bigogo's comment no 4. i like the way how you emphasized the importance of the holy spirit in hermeneutics. it is ture that the holy spirit transforms our natural mind into a new mind.He enlightens our minds and make us understands His divvine revealations us us.IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO REVEALS THE SECRET THINGS OF GOD US.
response on keivin solomon's comment no 4. its very intretint the way how you have said in your comment. chist is the incarnte ;the word was was God's revealation to human beings written in human language., and that the word who is Jesus Christ is God who took human flesh in order to save us.
a response to wayne jamel on his comment on divinity and humanity of Jesus: yes is true that christ's humanity was united with divinity........ as you have quoated it from E.G.White! it is very interesting fact!
Edson Patrice- The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Chapter 2. Blog Submission #1
What does biblical authority mean? This is a question that can yield any number of answers. Of course when one considers the scriptures as the express thought of God this makes it difficult to accept more than one definition for this expression. In Professor Hanna’s book the second chapter wrestles with the implications of that expression with what I believe is a comprehensive outlook. The authority of scripture as it relates to other books is not particularly a tough concept to grasp. Others have valid problems with the accuracy of such a book written with its unique characteristics and should seek clarity or at times divine intervention to deal with those dilemmas. But I am convinced that scripture stands above all other books inspired or not as an authority never to be overthrown. It is in the suggestion that Professor Hanna makes in his book that makes me ponderous. What do we really mean when we speak of scriptures authority? Indeed it is the rule of faith. This means that the primary source of our Christian identity should be from holy writ. The pill is getting larger and thus more difficult to swallow. Well, you may be thinking, that doesn’t seem too difficult. Perhaps, but where does scriptures authority fall in relation to Christ? One may honestly see this as a moot question because the bible clearly states in John that Christ was in the beginning and was the word. But to accept Christ as the author of scripture says nothing, if there is anything worth saying, about the rank of scripture in relation to Christ. I feel that Dr. Hanna’s proposal in this chapter suggest that both the cosmos and Christ receive their authority from scripture and implies that scripture gives authority to Christ. In other words, the Word in its original form gave authority to the Word in its incarnate form. What does this mean? This means that even Christ, who is authoritative Himself, had to be held up against scripture for His credentials. The more poignant point that Hanna makes in this chapter is how scripture can comment on the theological interpretation of all knowledge. This has amazing coherence. I think its Jesus’ personal checks and balances system.
Edson Patrice- The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Chapter 2 Blog Submission # 2 In my last submission I spoke of the authority of scripture as it relates to Christ. I commented on Dr. Hanna’s statements about the primacy of scripture as it relates to one of the other two revelations given to us by God. For this submission I would like to comment on the latter revelation. There is likely no gap that is seemingly as wide as scripture is to nature. In fact the dissonance that exists between scientists and theologians has become a matter of pop-culture, as it is so pervasive. In my class about the Issues in Origins we are exposed to countless material from various sources that present factual information about the world we live in. These facts in most part are presented with a great deal of emphasis on the empirical data. Scientists see collected data as the irrefutable evidence for the claims they make which are often implicit if not overt attacks on faith. In response to such claims theologians seem to make lackluster arguments. Somehow the rhetoric always seems to be on the empiricist’s playing field. Undoubtedly the scripture is a document of faith and might seem to be a foreign entity to that of that scientist, but nothing could ever be closer. The authority of scripture as a rule for our faith points to the cosmos as a subservient but also authoritative aspect of God’s revelation. It is the responsibility of theologians and scientist alike to observe this inextricable relationship as they seek to reconcile one to the other. But make no mistake about it, there must be and is perfect symmetry between the two. I believe that mysteries that lie in either are an invitation to avoid autonomy or being more precise, authoritarian power. This is not the kind of power the scripture yields.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Hermeneutics & Culture Blog Submission #3 Presuppositions can be deceptively subtle to the mind of even the most seasoned bible student. This makes the challenge of exposing them the theological equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack. If it is at all possible the challenge is double when one considers the influence of culture in this interpretation. Professor Hanna reminds us in his book that the role of human experience should not be discarded when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. Bible students draw on the personal experience of their lives and with the inspiration of its Author come to an understanding of what message should be translated to. Now in this article culture is defined as the sum total of ways of living developed by a group handed down from generation to generation. This means that culture itself is a progressive agent. Antiquity on the other hand, or cultures of the past is not. In fact it is quite static. Stress must be placed on the student who reads the bible indeed but this becomes more and more vital as time passes on. Certainly when the letters of Paul were written the axioms and cultural references used did not require explanation from Paul. They were immediately understood. The supremacy of the Bible’s position should not be seen because of all the ancillary tools used to help with deciphering those cultural references but predominantly in the cultural transcendence of its Author. I am not discounting the usefulness of these adjuncts to scripture but stressing the point that they should not be seen as supreme themselves. If we fail to preserve the scriptures ability to interpret it self then we commit the crime of this articles most obvious point Bible above culture.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Hermeneutics and Culture Blog Submission #4 On the subject of interpretation this article provoked a few questions for me as it relates to the black liberation theology movement and the black experience. It is worth reiterating the importance of the human experience when studying the scriptures. This paints the lens that the Holy Spirit hopefully subscribes. As the article states the narrative of liberation finds its most colorful support in the story of the Egyptian slavery of the Jews. So fundamental is this view of liberation in the black experience that it even paints the hue in which God is seen. Surely he is the liberator of His people who sets them free from the evil oppressors of His chosen. The aspect of this theology is obviously limited. It typifies the oppressed as the good and the oppressors as evil. This may fit with the narrative of the Egyptian enslavement but it would fail in the rubric of all the other oppressions God’s people faced throughout the narrative of scripture. Such an example of this could be found in the story of the Babylonian captivity. This oppression was a milder one but no form of oppression is favorable. Another aspect of this that’s limited is how it isolates races that never experienced any major oppression. While a number of categories within the human race can relate the male Anglo is the least relatable if at all to this view. Scripture must rise above this mindset because God sets oppressors and the oppressed but He wishes to save all.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics Blog Submission #5 How does faith relate to reason as the bible student studies the Word of God? I realize this question has many levels to give an adequate answer. The first question that would need to be answered to even begin answering the first is what is the relationship between faith and reason? In the pursuit of biblical truth the correct answer to that question is: faith is above reason. This is a clear prerequisite of the biblical approach. To give faith and reason the same authority would be a tacit acceptance of the historical-critical rubric of bible interpretation. Once everything has its place is the student of scripture clear to dive into the word of God? No. It is also important to establish that reason has been sanctified. Faith is a gift from God but so is reason. Faith is born of the Spirit who gives to all without measure but all have a measure of reason given to them from birth. The transformation that occurs during conversion does not leave the reason the same. The Spirit must also transform the “logic board” of the brain to be in concert with the faith of the soul. A spiritual truth of the bible needs the Spirit to decode it. However, it is important to note that this is a gradual process. Not because the spirit is not renewed but because the effect of the flesh must be gradual weakened until it is dead.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Hermeneutics of the bible Apocalyptic Blog Submission# 6
The hermeneutical framework used in the interpretation of prophecy involves a lot of thoughtfulness. This is primarily because prophetic material holds a lot of emotional capital in the heart of its readers. Ellen White is clear about how misuse of prophecy can be very hurtful to the faith of a believer. The reckless use of prophecy for the sake of causing revival may provide a short-term response but creates animosity if claims are unmet. We know that the bible has predictive power. This is evidence of the life giving power of God’s word because it even feeds future events into existence. However the popular use of prophecy, even among bible believer Christians seek to make the bible into nothing more than a modern-day psychic or astrologer. This seeps into the hermeneutic of bible students through suppositions that incite fear and complacency. Prophecy is not made to scare or inspire inertia. On the contrary it is given to us as a source of peace and security and always motivates one to action. Often the prophecy leads the diligent student into a direct relationship with the predicted event and how they will play a role in the matter at hand. Unfortunately, the film industry has taken ownership of this part of scripture. Bold students of prophecy can use it during evangelism in a way that avoids demonization of individuals but exposes the ensuing deceptions. We need to claim back a redemptive portrayal of prophecy
356 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 356 of 356Ruslan Drumi Ass#3
May be we talked, but I don’t remember and want to raise a question, what is difference between SDA hermeneutics and other hermeneutics. For me even difficult to figure it out, because when I think about major points of SDA hermeneutics, looks like every church denomination uses it. Everybody believes in Sola Scriptura. Many churches believe also in Tota Scriptura and Prima Scriptura. But then we have Historical-Critical Method and Historical-Biblical approach. What else? We believe that Ellen White made a huge contribution in to Adventist Hermeneutics. First of all is that the scripture is the only rule of faith and practice. For example I grew up in a country where majority of population are orthodox. It’s hard to convince the person that the Bible is saying so, if he trust more what the church or priest is saying. And for Orthodox Church the traditions of the father often are the greater light, and the Bible is a lesser light. And if orthodox person is going to read a Bible, often he is going to approach with a certain collection of presuppositions. I also noticed myself reading and interpreting Bible from an Adventist perspective. And when Professor Hannah says, if we find the new light outside the SDA church, and we are convinced it’s truth, we should leave it. I thought, probably I will not be able to do leave this church even if there will be a reason for that. It shows me that very often we approach to study the Bible with Adventist presuppositions. So how the SDA hermeneutics help us to be balanced in interpreting the Bible? What is real Adventist hermeneutics?
@ Michael and AJ
I love that you guys are commenting on my presentation, and I really appreciate the perspectives. I'm just learning this stuff and it's helpful to me to see how others see it. I see the hermeneutical idea having a lot to do with the question of where do we place our confidence. Do we place it in having it all figured out? (e.g. "I'm Adventist because the doctrines are Biblical") Do we place it in believing something that sounds good to those around us? (e.g. "I'm Adventist because the community is so wonderful")Or is our confidence in the work we know God is doing in our lives? (e.g. "I'm Adventist because I have found Jesus in this church through the doctrines and people") If the later is true, we will approach others with humility and will seek to lead them to Christ first and foremost, because we know that the revelation of who God is will come from God himself.
This process is not only a mystical process of praying and doing what you feel God is saying. It involves praying, but also consulting the community, consulting scripture, and consulting nature. But always engaging all these revelations as tools by which to see God and not as an end in themselves.
Kosly Joseph
GSEM 510 -2
Assignment #3
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture , pg 56
I quote “ We should use every single day to increase logical, experiential, temporal and spiritual knowledge.” This statement resonated deeply with me. The paragraph stresses the importance training the mind to advance everyday. This requires purpose and intention. Unfortunately we live in an entertainment driven society. I am quite certain that the average adult can go several days without learning one single new thing.
I really like Ellen G. Whites approach to learning. This model follows a holistic approach to learning. This balanced approach to learning is essential for our church. I think our churches do very well at relaying information, but not in a holistic manner. We thrive on intellectual, theological information, but often fall short in relaying temporal and experimental information. Rarely does one discover how to get better gas mileage with their car, and conserve the environment at Church. By refocusing our church experience, we could build an environment where all forms of knowledge can increase.
In conclusion, learning is always intentional. We should seek new opportunities to learn and share what God is teaching us. The more we know, through all modes of learning, the deeper our love will grow for Christ.
Assignment #3
I read chapter 8 from “Understanding Scripture” by Ganoune Diop.
This chapter was really good. I was impressed with the breadth of understanding that the author presented in dealing with the issue of “innerbiblical interpretation.” One of the things I appreciated is that he put emphasis not only on direct quotes of one scripture to another, but on the general themes of scripture. So often the method of comparing text with text becomes a study in how to mis-understand the meaning of both texts, but the author discussed with example after example how to understand the theme of one passage and apply that to another.
The last part of the chapter has a list of “guidelines for intertexual reading of scripture” that is quite good. I appreciate that it is a very accessible approach. I think that most lay people would be able to use that list as a guide, and it points to the importance of simply understanding a lot of scripture.
The last item on his list of guidelines is the best, “Focus on the fact that Scripture testifies about Jesus (John 5:39)” (p. 149). That is one of those items that, if you keep it in mind, will correct a multitude of sins in other areas.
Another aspect I appreciate about this chapter is the unity it presents between the New and Old Testaments. It’s one of the things I love about being Adventist. Our theology is very in touch with the depth of meaning in the Old Testament as compared to a Christian community at large which I have found sometimes discounts the Old Testament. I know this is certainly not true of all. As support for this, Diop pointed to instances in the New Testament in which the Old Testament is cited as legitimate and authoritative.
Something else I appreciated is that he pointed out how in Jesus’ use of the Old Testament he unabashedly re-interpreted it. That isn’t to say he conflicted with what the Torah says, but he gave it his own meaning. Other Biblical writers did this as well, including Paul.
This raised a question for me. Do we have the same right? Can we look at scripture as well and say, “no, this has been interpreted wrongly, this is the true interpretation”? Of course, we could be wrong, but could we also be right? It seems like that is exactly what Martin Luther did and exactly what William Miller did.
Deirdre Raymond
Assignment #3
"We are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the Gospel" - MS 44, 1898.
I was impressed by this quote from Ellen White found in Hanna's book on page 60. It seemed to really resonate with my past experience of theological reflection or reflection on the Gospel without deepening my personal relationship with Christ; actually feeling further away from God personally! This quotation prompted me to ask a few questions to delve into what she meant. First I asked the question; What is the gospel according to Ellen White? I searched her writings for the gospel and found that to Ellen White the Gospel is essentially salvation from sin - which is found in both the Old and New Testaments (FLB 88.3-.4). But it was also surprising to me how she overwhelmingly states that Jesus is the Gospel (MS 44, 1898; FLB 88.5). This lead me to ask another question: How do we praise or worship the gospel without praising or worshiping Christ? Is this even possible? As I stated previously, my own experience leads me to believe that it is possible. We can talk about theology without praising or worshiping the God we are talking about. This happens when we talk abstractly about a certain issue. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that this is not good to do; I believe it is necessary and very enjoyable. But the problem comes when we worship theology. We can praise or worship the ideas we expound on about salvation. We can talk about how Jesus is simultaneously God and human or the complexities of the reincarnation or the cross without praising or worshiping God. So this comes me to my last question; how can we praise and worship God while doing theology or talking about the Gospel? Ellen White places a lot of emphasis on spiritual development - Just look at Steps to Christ. And this spiritual development comes as God reveals Godself to us through Scripture, nature, and especially through Christ who is revealed in Scripture. We must make sure that our theological discussions aren't just abstract intellectual concepts but that they deeply affect our personal understanding and worship of Jesus. As we discussed a while ago in class, theology is "God-talk" which includes God's communication to us, our communication to each other, and our communication to God. I believe each of these are necessary for us to have a vibrant, theologically and spiritually deep relationship with God. Praise and worship is a vital way of communicating with God. If our theological reflection does not include this element, according to Ellen White in this quotation it is misplaced and pointless.
Deirdre Raymond
Assignment #3
"We are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the Gospel" - MS 44, 1898.
I was impressed by this quote from Ellen White found in Hanna's book on page 60. It seemed to really resonate with my past experience of theological reflection or reflection on the Gospel without deepening my personal relationship with Christ; actually feeling further away from God personally! This quotation prompted me to ask a few questions to delve into what she meant. First I asked the question; What is the gospel according to Ellen White? I searched her writings for the gospel and found that to Ellen White the Gospel is essentially salvation from sin - which is found in both the Old and New Testaments (FLB 88.3-.4). But it was also surprising to me how she overwhelmingly states that Jesus is the Gospel (MS 44, 1898; FLB 88.5). This lead me to ask another question: How do we praise or worship the gospel without praising or worshiping Christ? Is this even possible? As I stated previously, my own experience leads me to believe that it is possible. We can talk about theology without praising or worshiping the God we are talking about. This happens when we talk abstractly about a certain issue. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that this is not good to do; I believe it is necessary and very enjoyable. But the problem comes when we worship theology. We can praise or worship the ideas we expound on about salvation. We can talk about how Jesus is simultaneously God and human or the complexities of the reincarnation or the cross without praising or worshiping God. So this comes me to my last question; how can we praise and worship God while doing theology or talking about the Gospel? Ellen White places a lot of emphasis on spiritual development - Just look at Steps to Christ. And this spiritual development comes as God reveals Godself to us through Scripture, nature, and especially through Christ who is revealed in Scripture. We must make sure that our theological discussions aren't just abstract intellectual concepts but that they deeply affect our personal understanding and worship of Jesus.
Assignment #3
In my readings of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” chapter 8 and 9 dealing with Christ revelation to man through the cosmos I was captivated most by one thought.
This thought was dealing with the idea of light being revealed to all a little bit at a time as they are able to handle it. This was posited because of sin dulling our senses to the full revelation and light of Christ. So we might say it follows that we could not truly understand Scripture if we did not understand to a degree the revelation within the cosmos. We likewise would not understand Christ completely if we did not have a foreknowledge of Scripture. This may or may not be doing the chapter justice.
Still, I love the metaphor of light. I completely agree that we need light in this world to see, in more than just spiritual matters. My own house is the perfect illustration. At night, if all the lights are off in my house I cannot “see.” Yet my eyes are able to adjust and I can navigate all right until I find the light-switch to turn on the greater light. The only time that I really cannot adjust to see is when it is PITCH BLACK. However even if say I was blindfolded I would still have my hands and feet to stumble around and search for a light-switch or to pull off the blind fold, or attempt something to help my visibility. When taken into the spiritual realm I can believe undoubtedly that God has provided ways to reach greater light, even if I am in the spiritual pitch black of sin.
Responding to Wilfred's blog about Revelation Inspiration:
Thank you for your reflection on thought inspiration v. other views. I have give this a bit of thought as well, specifically on what we really mean by thought inspiration. How does the Spirit inspire authors of the biblical text? Does God take them out of their culture/mindset/presuppositions and place an alternate heavenly culture/mindset/presuppositions? Are potential "mistakes" in the text limited to grammatical errors or is does the author's culture/mindset/presuppositions and worldview impact the text in a way that could lead to some theological problems. (If I have time I will pursue a couple of these questions in my presentation this coming week in regards to God's revelation through Scripture; conflicting images of God) In a nutshell my question is: Does the Holy Spirit take the biblical author out of his own culture/mindset/presuppositions/worldview or does this impact the text and (if so) could this negatively impact the text?
Assignment #4
In my reading of Understanding Scripture I just finished chapter VIII dealing with the Bible’s intertextuality and a light just turned on as I read it!
I am always striving, as other pastors will, to make a Biblical passage relevant to today. Sometimes it seems so difficult, especially if the Bible passage was chosen for me or I have not had a personal experience of that passage speaking to me.
After reading this chapter I realized something about Bible relevance throughout all time. It’s like the Bible writers never wrote a passage or book of Scripture and then at the end included the two words we often imaginarily write in; “The End.” Instead many stories are blatantly without an end, for a simple example I think of the story of Jonah. Certainly this fits into the greater interconnectedness and intertextuality of Scripture because the history of the Scriptures is still an open book. Now I understand the canon is closed, but what I mean is that we are a part of the history of Scripture in that we have the privilege and opportunity of writing ourselves into the story by becoming the characters, by making the right decisions instead of the bad ones, and by following the instructions, corrections, rebukes, and teachings from here forward.
There is not an “End” written anywhere in the books of the Bible, but each author picked up history where they were and applied previous lessons to their current situation i.e. Hosea referring to the time of Jacob’s trouble as to the current circumstance and then Bible writers reflected or even prophesied as to what the future would hold for the individuals involved.
We are in one of those very stories where the future has been prophesied to us, where each passage in Scripture might as well be written about us or for us and when we get to the actual day of the end we will have already decided how our story ends by our application of God’s revelation through His Word. (Of course those who never know God’s Word, i.e. Never knew about or read the Bible are likely excluded from my conclusions.)
Response 2 to Kosley Joseph Assignment #3
"I quote “ We should use every single day to increase logical, experiential, temporal and spiritual knowledge.” This statement resonated deeply with me. The paragraph stresses the importance training the mind to advance everyday. This requires purpose and intention. Unfortunately we live in an entertainment driven society. I am quite certain that the average adult can go several days without learning one single new thing.
I follow that train of thought Kosley. I think even a well intended Christian who spends minimal time on entertainment will still find life to be as busy as it needs to be to avoid spiritual growth or learning.
Now I don't know if I can give credit to the enemy for the increases in technology, but I will blame him for influencing the human race to such competitiveness, such division, and such greed for advancement and power that we as a race in general will spend an entire days worth of activity in the hopes of promoting our own life or self-interests before we would think about spending one minute with our Creator, Savior, and Redeemer God. I fall into that trap.
There is a lifestyle, that is no doubt influenced by where we live, that causes us to be busy or do so much work that results in a worn out mind and body experience that wants nothing more than to do a no-body no-brain activity (watch tv, play games, surf the computer, you name it) just to recover from the chaos we had to go through that day. Maybe I just speak for myself :).
I know I haven't responded to your entire blog, dealing with the holistic learning approach and so forth, but I got caught up on the quote as well. I hope to follow through with sharing what God reveals to us as a church, as its truth that in all areas of life we can see his work.
Deirdre Raymond
Assignment #4
Hanna, p. 67 - "Christians agree that the heart of Christian theology is the doctrine of the divine-human Christ"
This caused me to ask a few questions:
What does this mean in regards to our systematic theology? If we truly believe that Christ is the center of our theology how does that affect the way we view our fundamental beliefs (as Adventists)? How does this change the way we understand and present what we believe? Is Christ really the center of our theology? Really? For the last year or so I have reflected on Adventist theology and asked the question, "What is the center of our theology?" It seems to me that we have a package of right beliefs which are based on our hermeneutics of Scripture and of Ellen White. The problem with having a package of beliefs is that if someone were to disagree with one or if one were to be disproved, since it is a package the whole package would be rejected. Of course we know as Adventists we believe that the 28 Fundamental Beliefs can be revised (just look at the preamble). However, having a package of set beliefs does cause this problem. I believe this is one of the issues young people and those on the "edge" of Adventism have a problem with. If they disagree with one thing then they are not Adventists anymore - they don't accept the whole package so they have to walk away. However, if our Adventist theology, and our 28 Fundamental Beliefs have a center and the center/core radiates outward to various beliefs it seems like this problem will be solved or at least it will definitely improve. If Christ is the center of Christian theology then Adventists by default should have Christ as the center as well. As I discussed in my previous assignment, Ellen White says that the Gospel is Christ. So if we have the Gospel/Christ in the center and emphasize Christ and see every other doctrine as living in light of the Gospel/Christ we will be fully Christian and truly Adventist. This will do away with legalism and will provide a much-needed bridge between Adventism and the larger Christian world. This does not mean, however, that we de-emphasize our Adventist message but that we view it as it relates to Christ; that will have to be another assignment altogether.
Elliot Lee
Assignment #3
I happened to be looking through Ch. 5 in Understanding Scripture,
and it seems like the "sound-bite" definition of "sola scriptura"
that I and some others tend towards doesn't match the definition
used by Martin Luther et al . From the class discussions I had
thought that there was a choice to be made between sola scriptura
(i.e. only the Bible) , tota scriptura (which I didn' t understand) ,
and prima scriptura ( Bible first among many revelations ) . Now I
see that while the other reveIations of God do fit into the
picture , the terms "sola scriptura" and "tota scriptura" are
still very relevant and accurate in describing our attitude
towards the revelation of God through the Bible. As helpful
as the other revelations of God may be, it s important that
they not take away from or add to the message of Scripture and
its integrity.
Elliot Lee
Assignment #4
While reading about the authority of Scripture, and how the
early Christian respect for the Bible was eroded by ( among other
things) "scholastic philosophy", it got me thinking of an issue
that has puzzled me with regard to modern-day hermeneutics . These
days , a lot of times you hear a passage interpreted in terms of
the principles supposedly expressed in it . For example , we read
"heap coals of fire on your enemy's head" and think "I should
be nice to my enemy" . My question is how we avoid principalizing
away the truth of Scripture . How do we know that the " coals of fire"
passage (which I have grossly misquoted) doesn't mean to do that
literally? How do we know that the 4th commandment isn't about just
the principle of rest, and that the detail of the 7th day isn't
unimportant? How do we know that Paul s comment about women
keeping silence in church shouldn't be taken literally? And so on . . .
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 5/ Reflection Reading
October 31, 2010
Assignment 5/ Reflection Reading
There are many interpretations for various genres in the bible. The Genre of Parables are the most confusing for me. Many Christians love to dissect the parables of Jesus. They come up with many new nuisances to those parables. Pastor’s love to preach them and some create parables of their own. I find parables difficult and confusing because in the Old Testament parables followed judgment. In the case of David, Samuel told him the parable of the one ewe lamb (2 Sam 12) and David’s judgment came soon after. In the New Testament, Jesus used parables to illustrate truths about the kingdom of God however; he used this same information to hide precious truths from his enemies.
Why does Jesus choose to keep some people in the dark while bringing light to others? It sounds contradictory to the purpose of the Cross. His mission was not to condemn but to bring salvation to the world. Does that salvation include everyone or certain people? Mark 4 allows me to see that Jesus purpose was not to keep people in darkness but their confusion arose from the rejection already in their hearts. The parables seemed confusing, but in reality it was their refusal and resistance to the words of Christ and Christ himself. For example, I don’t like working on cars, so if someone was explaining to me how to fix a transmission in a car, it would go right over my head, however; if someone was explaining to me how to use a T.V. remote control, I would have that mystery solved immediately ( I love T.V.).
CONTINUATION...
Jesus used parables to teach, warn, illustrate characteristics of the kingdom and hide information from those who rejected him. Will there come a time for in-time preachers to use parables like Jesus did? Since parables arise from everyday life experiences and the parables’ of Jesus were stories from everyday life-in order to make a comparison with God’s reality; what are the limitations to this type of interpretation? The limitations are what causes confusion for me. Preachers and church members take a 2010 approach to Jesus’ parables (only the application); although they should not because the setting and background of that era within their story world (parable) is the only way for an accurate or correct interpretation. This is normally what is left out of the translation. The prodigal son and the rich man & Lazarus are the two most misused parables in today’s church by all denominations. It is twisted to fit the preacher’s sermon or viewpoint which is very dangerous for their listeners.
The rich man and Lazarus story is used to support purgatory (Catholics) while the prodigal son is used to keep children under the parent’s control (SDA’s). The author points to literary devices used for interpretation. The three are: ‘Historical, Cultural, Grammatical and Lexical Data’, ‘The Story Analysis’ and ‘Applying the Story Today’. The literary devices are important for the analysis of the text and its context. It is vital for the teachers/ translators of parables to understand and focus on the concept of truth in what they teach. In the end, I pray I am faithful to methods necessary to bring truth for the renewing power of Christ to bring change in the lives of many.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 6/ Reflection Reading
October 31, 2010
Assignment 6/ Reflection Reading
I was reading “the authority of the Bible” from Canale’s web page because I wanted to know why I should use a particular bible. I am the owner of a bible with four different translations. They are the New International Version, New American Standard Version, King James Version, and New living translation. I love my bible because, depending on how I feel, one translation becomes clearer or should I say that I can understand it better. I often like to compare each reading to get a broader understanding or another view if the texts do not read the same (they almost always do).
I remember reading about the work of Erasmus, and how he used several Greek manuscripts because he did not have access to one complete manuscript to put forth a Greek-Latin translation. The Greek text was known as textus receptus and this is where we get the basis for our King James Version of the New Testament. The one thing that stuck out with reading about Erasmus is that he ignored older and better manuscripts because he was afraid that texts may have been erratic. Although this is significant for me, it no longer seems important because George Reid points out that since the time of Erasmus; we have discovered older biblical manuscripts. These sources have a 500 year copying advantage therefore offer less chance for mistakes.
CONTINUATION
If you ask any pastor which bible version you should use, most will say the King James Version. I also am a supporter of the King James however I believe that different versions offer the same value as do King James. Reid states that these are problems in translation such as looser dynamic translation where – translators have taken the liter reading of text and transformed it to read according to their beliefs. This is true, have anyone ever heard of a bible called the “clear word”.
I am not taking a cheap shot at Adventist however; living in 2010 I rather read any version of scripture than none at all. I believed that a good version is necessary for teaching and preaching the word of God but there is also value in translation that are easier to read for the less or uneducated. I also agree that bible readers should select a version based on the most ancient manuscript whose translators are committed to literal translation but I must this question. How much danger can an individual be in if he or she read any version honestly looking for Jesus being led by the Spirit? I would like to believe any version.
Assignment #4
From Dr. Hanna’s book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture,” chapter 5, “Reading the revelation of Divinity in Humanity: Will the Real Christ Stand Up?”
Dr. Hanna brought up a number of very tough issues in this chapter that I have never thought about. He talked about how understanding the incarnation requires both an understanding of what divinity is and an understanding of what humanity is.
I have a background in psychology, and one of the things that every psychological theory deals with is the nature of humanity, and they are all very different. Someone once put identified how many different, distinguishable psychological theories there are and came up with hundreds. That’s hundreds of different ideas about what the nature of humanity is. Of course, when you put them all together there are three or four main categories.
It would be easy to say we should just look to the Bible to see what it says instead of psychology, but is theology we produce from such attempts any better? Aren’t there just as many theological theories as psychological theories?
Dr. Hanna left the whole thing in a question mark to be addressed in subsequent chapters, and I guess I’m going to do the same, because I’m not ready to take a position on this issue.
I still remember studying all those different psychological theories and feeling unsatisfied with everyone of them. I do hope that theology can do better. But I think it is crucial to realize that these technical issues are all subordinate to the main truths of scripture, that we need a savior and that Jesus is that Savior. Sometimes in all the arguing we can get confused about it.
Dr. Hanna also brought up the issue of the Trinity and the problems Christians have had in coming to a consensus on the issue. About a year ago I read a book that went through the history of the Christian church in a very broad way. I remember being appalled by all the wars that were fought over the issue of the Trinity. People were killing each other because they didn’t see it quite the same.
Hopefully we are not killing each other anymore, but there is still a lot of nastiness going on, some perpetuated by SDAs and some not. I fear that it only degrades our witness with the world that wonders why on earth we are so angry at each other over issues they see as trivial. Yet, I don’t want to push theological issues under the rug, either. But we need to be kind and understanding with each other.
Response #2
@ Elliot
I appreciate your questions about how can we know what the scripture means. I think you captured that it is very difficult to do so. So the first thing has to be humility in acknowledging that we DO NOT have it all figured out or nailed down. We are probably even wrong about some of the things we think we are right about.
That's okay, if God had wanted to transmit information more perfectly, he would have given us a systematic theology, or maybe bullet-points, instead of the library of poetry, history, epistles, and other genres that we call the Bible.
We have lots and lots of tools, and we should use them. The most important might be to focus on the themes of scripture as a whole and compare scripture with scripture (but only after understanding context).
But ultimately it is up to God to reveal his truth to us. We need to work hard, but pray even harder, knowing that He is the only one who can keep us on track. Then we just need to trust and not worry about it.
Marvin Gittens – Contextual Bible Reading! Reading Assignment 2!
As I ponder the idea of Biblical Inspiration, the idea that the words of Scripture are inspired by God, I can’t help but wonder the extent or necessity of considering Scripture, within its Biblically prescribed context. That is to say that we (believers, lay workers, and pastors) tend to use Bible passages out of context, and seem to think it perfectly alright so long as it goes along with presently ascribed church doctrine. A good example of this is in 1 Corinthians 3:16,17 where some tend to use the text to suppose that it is saying that our bodies are the temple of Christ, and therefore not to be defiled by meats, cigarettes, or other poor lifestyle choices, when in fact it seems to be really referring here to the body of Christ as being the church which was apparently divided at the time because of the Spiritual blindness of some, carnality, and the claim to be of Paul or Apollos, rather than of Christ. Further the defiling of the temple in verse 17 therefore may really be referring to that of ‘building some other foundation of faith than that which was laid, Christ Jesus (v.11), if we really consider the text’s context. In Contextual Reading we must consider what came before in the Bible book, not just any specific verse of reference. The meaning gathered by some as pertaining to keeping our bodies pure is still positive and good, it’s just not what the text is talking about.
Chapter 15 in Understanding Scripture: ‘Hermeneutics and Culture’
I am sure and I already have seen it happen on different cultures. People have different approaches in how the Bible is considered. Per example, In a little town where I was raised, the people over there had a very hard way to see the bible verses referring to the “Christian life” and the members of the church were the ones in which the rules were applied heavily. From music to Clothing, any opportunity to be extremist was performed by the elders, pastors and even parents.
But I grew up and learning to love God and I started asking, were their way to see the bible and its teachings as the same as I approach the truths inside it today? What happen to myself and the concepts of right and wrong?
One thing I really appreciate in this small world is that God touches people in very different ways. Is like this: My personal spiritual experience doesn’t work to someone else and vice-versa.
God Has His peculiar way to reach the heart of each one.
I confess that today is kind of hard to find a balance in our profession of faith face to a world full of options and so many theories! Should I go back to the past and be so extremist as my church members so I can be more puritan? I honesty believe some people would be very disappointed with Jesus if He would be living today and using the modern methods to preach, read the bible and even evangelize the world!
Marvin Gittens
–Reading Assignment 2!
In Response To:
Ruslan Drumi Assignment #3
Hey Ruslan, good questions, I too have pondered how it is that we should approach hermeneutics with regard to ‘what’s the best way of interpretation.’ From what I’ve learned since being in professor Hanna’s class, we should probably as a general rule move away from being too dogmatic about what we assume the text to be saying or meaning. I recently published on the blog (Assignment 2) an idea that we should consider the actual context of texts in scripture, before trying to use statements made as a rule of conduct or denominational teaching. That is not to say that we should ignore ideas that are intelligent just because it might be ‘out of context,’ but that we should try to determine based on the author’s own words, what they seem to at least be ‘trying to say.’ What is a good hermeneutic, I think one that is honest to the writer’s own words and seeming intent within the text. What people, ideas, things, subject(s) does the author seem to be pre-occupied with; what seem to be the goal(s) or purpose(s) of the written text(s)? In other words, we should probably avoid trying to pull out of the text things that are not there. Life-applications are good, but let’s also try to use a hermeneutic that allows for correct interpretation through what is actually written in the text, not only on what others have said is there.
Response to Wayne comment #2
Very good point Wayne!!! I totally agree with what you had to say. We should always consider what the text had to say to the audience "back in the day" in order to better apply it to the present-day audience. We must make an effort to put aside all presuppositions when approaching the text and trying to put ourselves in the place of the original audience.
On the Chapter VII (Guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture), According to Muller the interpretation of the Bible should create a “burning heart” in both the interpreter and those who will hear his/her interpretation (audience).
I believe that a major role should be played by the Holy Spirit in this case. The Holy Spirit is the one who touches (or not) the heart of the interpreter, and guides his/her mind in that decision of thinking this or that way. So the same Holy Spirit is the one who converts the hearts and opens the minds of those who hear the interpretation. And for sure, it’s true, can cause a burning heart on both elements.
I remember talking to 2 friends about the service in one of the days at PMC. One of them said to me that He didn’t get much from the service that day and the other one said that He had felt a little bit of what haven would be. What happen in the experience of these two individual. Was the Holy Spirit touching in both hearts?
I am sure, it was. But the predisposition of the individual in making room for the Holy Spirit in his heart would be also very important. So the same way, if I ask, was Pr. Dwight Nelson’s (the interpreter) heart burning as the same was the heart of one of my friends? I would answer: “I am a believer of it!.” But what happened to the heart of my other friend? For sure He didn’t allow the Holy Spirit to speak to him at that time. For some reason or other, it just didn’t happened! So here is what I conclude, the Interpreter of the scripture had the heart burning. One of the church attendants as well, what about the indifferent one? Just because the process was not completed on that person, should I suppose that the process of “heart burning” didn’t happen? I am sure it did. But It did in those who allowed it to happen.
Understanding Scripture, chap. 8: Assign 3
When read in isolation biblical texts can be very confusing. Without context Scripture can be difficult to decipher and challenge our strongly held views about faith. Context is important for proper interpretation of Scripture as it leave clues to meaning within the text. Being aware of key elements of books and chapters illumine verses. The thrust of this chapter concerns biblical interpretation in the context of the entire bible through associations made in the NT to the OT. The use of OT in the NT is a means of arriving at a proper interpretation. Jesus and the NT writers made copious use of OT scripture. Dr. Diop takes the position that within this framework, the NT writers were faithful in their use of the OT in the original context they were written. The difficulty in this position is that NT use of OT, in some cases, seems to be very arbitrary. In those cases, the situation in which the OT is applied differs from the sense in which it was first written. Nevertheless, I believe Dr. Diop is correct when he says that the use of OT in the NT is legitimate. NT writers were speaking in the larger context of the revelation of Christ Jesus. In this sense, Christ’s arrival and its significance is the idea superimposed over Israel’s temporal society.
Understanding Scripture, chap. 4: Assign 4
Revelation and Inspiration are terms that refer to the way God communicates with us. Christians generally refer to general revelation as nature and special revelation as the Bible. In this chapter, Dr. Canale attempts to ascertain clues from scripture and reason exactly how the revelation-inspiration process operates. After surveying faulty models of revelation-inspiration, he determines R-I was a phenomenal manifestation that only reasonably involved the Bible writers possessing inspired thoughts. These men were free to place inspired thoughts into their own language. This position presupposes that despite human limitations, God’s message is not tampered with significantly. The concept of thought inspiration is a challenge because it places a great deal of power in the testimony of human authors. The verbal inspiration idea is stronger here because it relates to Scripture as a divine operation with a minimal human role. However, thought inspiration is the only way to account for the variety of language, genre and style within Scripture. It also accounts for grammatical and other errors in the Bible. The notion of inspired thought does not take God out of the position of Author of Scripture. Instead, it empowers us to view God as an Author who entrusts humans the joy of being apart of the writing process.
Response, Assign 2
Response to Wayne MEANT AND MEAN ARE DIFFERENT
Hey friend, I know you posted this some time ago but I had to comment on it. This is a very important topic and one I have been thinking about for some time. I agree that both what the text means and meant are important, but need to be distinguished. I believe that this can be done best through prayerful exegesis of any passage of Scripture. I believe, nevertheless, some parts of the Scripture (i.e. prophecy) have specific dates of fulfillment and particular applications. I do not believe in multiple meanings which is what in some sense your post hints. Notwithstanding, the language of scripture and faith espoused by believers at anytime and in any circumstance can be related to us living today.
Assignment #5
After reading chapter 10 in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture I related to the final section and conclusion the most. In the section titled “Reasonable Faith” I was reminded again that across all backgrounds no matter who you are or what you do; whether rich or poor, young or old, Asian, African, Hispanic, European, etc. and inclusive of both male and female alike everyone has an equal opportunity to know God and to have faith in him as they have the chance to refuse to believe in him.
This is seen through a reasonable faith in which there is enough evidence to have faith, but not so much evidence to remove the opportunity for free choice. The same individuals who choose faith, could equally choose to doubt and the same individuals who choose to doubt could choose to have faith. This encourages me in my walk because the enemy wants me to doubt and my perfectionist attitude wants to have all the answers to all the questions of doubt he poses. Yet I can take hold of the evidence I have been given and with a reasonable faith trust that God is who he says he is through Christ, through the Bible, and through the Cosmos and that He will do what He promised to do; that is offer us eternal life at the second of Christ for those who will believe on Jesus.
The conclusion of this chapter restated that there can be a distinction without a dichotomy between both science and theology, as well as faith and reason. So that we may understand them in a cooperative light.
Assignment #6
An interesting topic that caught my attention when reading Chapter 11 in Understanding Scripture titled “Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy” was regarding the promises of salvation to Israel. Were the promises conditional were they literal and will there be a saving of the entire nation of Israel, were they spiritual referring to the people of God who followed after the faith of Abraham? These were the questions that were dealt with in more detail than I will be able to give in this blog.
However as I read about this subject and I began to think about Israel being the first people to receive the salvation message and then the Gentiles, or rather all other peoples, nations, tribes, and tongues receiving it second, I was reminded of the Old Testament stories of both of Abraham’s children and then of Isaac’s children. In each case the first born son was not the one that received the spiritual inheritance. And so I started to wonder if the promise made to Israel of all being saved is not more of a conditional prophecy as well as a spiritual one. If Israel, the Jewish nation today, should show loyalty to God by believing in Jesus and turn from their sins then they could be saved. At the same time all of spiritual Israel (those who have the faith of Abraham, of whom we may be a part) will all be saved because they believe and are counted righteous. The firstborn in this case Israel, may not receive the blessing as the second born Gentiles have been more faithful and could be the real spiritual Israel the promise refers to. Maybe.
Response #3 to Deirdre Raymond
Assignment #3
I believe I have had this experience as well Deirdre. My excitement for the gospel has at times been excitement for my freedom of condemnation, but without regard to who or how I had received that freedom.
It seems to me there are several steps in true acceptance of the Gospel, which may be in an order something like this:
1 - Realizing our fallen state as sinful human beings
2 - Understanding that a death is necessary for our sins
3 - Accepting that Jesus in our place took our death
4 - Rejoicing in the new assurance of salvation
5 - Remembering the credit and praise for our salvation belongs to God through Christ alone
I say "remember" since I may be ecstatic about the wonderful news of the gospel and my assurance of salvation but forget to return to the Lord and thank him personally and bless his name.
I think of the ten lepers that were healed and the single individual that returned to give thanks. We should search our thoughts and actions and ask ourselves are we the 10% or the 90% in that story?
I believe we can very easily fall into the representative 90% that celebrate the healing and forget to thank the healer. Myself being the first to admit I have been there and done that.
Arthur Jennings
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment 7/ Reflection Reading
October 31, 2010
Assignment 7/ Reflection Reading
Dr. Hanna has been teaching in class that a good hermeneutic is important for understanding and interpreting scripture. This is very true but does Adventist have their own hermeneutic as do other religions? My answer is a resounding YES! In reading the section, ‘another look at Adventist hermeneutics’ by George Reid I am even more convinced that an Adventist hermeneutic exists. Reid takes the two fundamental questions into exploration. First he asks, does an Adventist hermeneutic exist and second can we confirm it if it does exist. Past Adventists typically agreed on the foundations, the validity of scripture, and God’s acts with human experience and they also spent much attention looking at the biblical background to illuminate the scriptures.
Then came the influence of Ellen White and how she interpreted scripture in which we took careful note of. Although I believe Adventism has good hermeneutics, I also believe there are some flaws in it as well. Reid points out some revisions such as: the new hermeneutic must cope with problems rather than the enhancement of biblical teachings, factor in the social and physical sciences adjusting its interpretation appropriately, give more weight to background cultural influences, and the changing nature of revealed truth (present truth) as well as other stipulations.
Now, although I am convinced that an Adventist hermeneutic exists, I did not say we should not use it. I only stated there were some flaws, but keep in mind there are flaws in every hermeneutic. We just have to adjust our hermeneutic as often as God reveals through our research, study and commitment to his word.
Reid suggests the major criteria in deciding hermeneutic should lie in its fruits. I believe that is where our (Adventist) hermeneutic has always been. It is a Christ centered hermeneutic that leads all to the saving grace of God. Although our hermeneutic needs some adjustment, I personally would not stray too far from it unless proven contrary of the will of God.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Reflection # Four
The nature of Christ
Dr. Hanna’s analysis of the nature that Christ existed in during His earthly abode left my mind so much triggered. On the same theme, I read the SDA Bible commentary on Philippians 4:7 that “It was not possible for Christ to retain all the tokens of divinity and still accomplish the incarnation”. Several questions plagued my mind; was Christ conscious of his divinity while in his mission on earth? According to Dr. Hanna’s words, we have one nature that is fallen which all humanity has inherited from Adam. How much of this humanity did Jesus posses, and how much divinity combined with this humanity to make up a divine- human being in the process of incarnation? Bearing in mind that the word was God(divine) John 1:1, what does Paul imply when he writes in Romans 3:23 that “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, Is Jesus inclusive or exclusive in the “all”? In line with the Bible commentary, what might be the implication that Christ retained a few elements (tokens) of divinity in order to accomplish the incarnation? Is it suggesting that Christ was not fully divine or that entirely he did not make use of all his divinity during the earthly life and mission? I kindly request whoever understands these questions to help me figure out the nature of the incarnate Christ.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Assignment # 4
The Nature of Christ
Dr. Hanna’s analysis of the nature that Christ existed in during His earthly abode left my mind so much triggered. On the same theme, I read the SDA Bible commentary on Philippians 4:7 that “It was not possible for Christ to retain all the tokens of divinity and still accomplish the incarnation”. Several questions plagued my mind; was Christ conscious of his divinity while in his mission on earth? According to Dr. Hanna’s words, we have one nature that is fallen which all humanity has inherited from Adam. How much of this humanity did Jesus posses, and how much divinity combined with this humanity to make up a divine- human being in the process of incarnation? Bearing in mind that the word was God(divine) John 1:1, what does Paul imply when he writes in Romans 3:23 that “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, Is Jesus inclusive or exclusive in the “all”? In line with the Bible commentary, what might be the implication that Christ retained a few elements (tokens) of divinity in order to accomplish the incarnation? Is it suggesting that Christ was not fully divine or that entirely he did not make use of all his divinity during the earthly life and mission? I kindly request whoever understands these questions to help me figure out the nature of the incarnate Christ.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Response to Wayne Jamel
Comment # 4
I appreciate for addressing the issue that is challenging my mind so much. This has been a question that keeps my mind so fascinated whenever I try figuring out the mystery of incarnation in relation to human salvation .In the process of the same analysis, I find myself challenged in trying to understand how much divinity and humanity Christ possessed in the incarnate divine- man state. Was he conscious of this state in his earthly life? If he did, how much of either did he use in his ministry? If you are at the position, kindly elaborate it more for me to understand better.
Ruslan Drumi Ass #4
Just now I have read more completely what Richard Davidson is making the comparison of two different approaches for Biblical interpretation: Historical-critical method and Historical Biblical approach. You remember the chart that we briefly looked at? I was amazed that even within our church there are still many discussions what approach to use to interpret the Bible. I begin to understand more clearly why today we have so many different denominations. And one of the reasons, is the historical-critical method that they are using in interpreting the Bible. For the first one knowledge and the mind are very important, and even Ellen White was writing about this, but the second is what is saying the Lord by these words. That’s why many of the Bible teaching are misunderstood, or interpreted in a different way. Many people study the Bible as a book, just because they like it or as a profession. And Ellen White warned about that. I like her words, when she says about the inspiration of the Scripture. She says: “Don’t touch it, because it’s like the Ark of Covenant”, meaning that we are not to judge which of the Bible parts are not inspirational. I was amazed by the fact that many Adventists theologians or professors do not support the Historical Biblical approach. And here we are blessed to have God’s prophet within our church, because without her ministry we would become just one more denominational movement. I mean that God used that woman to lead his people to a remnant church. I believe that God worked through many religious leaders during many ages, but only this way it was possible to establish the remnant church which would preach the three angels message.
Dr. Hanna raised a question in my mind this week that he didn’t answer. It’s in relation to good and evil. Did God create good and evil as stated in Isaiah 45:7 or is the verse translated the wrong way? I believe that God is not necessary the author of what He allows. I’m not well versed in Hebrew, so I’m not going to parse the verse in order to make it plain. However, one thing I know is that the devil is the father of sin. If sin is evil, how can God create it?
This verse is related to another in Genesis 3:22 that most versions translate as to say that: “man become one of us (God) to know good and evil.” Can God know evil? What does it mean to know evil or anything, for that matter? I understand that these are complicated subjects to wrestle with. Isaiah 45:7 is translated by other versions as calamity or hard time. Psalm 92 says “there is no unrighteousness in God.” In the case of Genesis 3:22, instead of “become” the verb is translated as “was” which can explain the state of man before and after sin. Therefore, certain things that are attributed to God as to what He does or create should be considered instead as to what He allows.
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj
Comment number 4.
Jason’s explanations of the Father and Son was an interesting topic, I saw how we struggle to describe Divine relationship with human words. It was obvious from Jason’s presentation that we are not able to fully understand the terms which are associated with Godhead.
God has always used our context to introduce himself to us. He has used human relationships, of a family such as the father, mother, son, and/or daughter parallel to his relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All of these connections are created in our realm and we can relate to them, since we are knitted into our family of origin, the Lord uses this valuable pictures of our lives to be intimate with us. I call this Incarnation of our mind set, it would be hard for us to comprehend the different dynamics of God, if we cannot relate or see it.
On a different aspect, this approach may create theological problems, as we try to solve God’s nature. For example some Native Americans believe that God is an Eagle because they quote scripture where God says He covers us with His feathers (Psalm 91:4 He will cover you with His feathers. He will shelter you with His wings.). I believe that Jesus never said He is the absolute truth and He never said that He would fully reveal His divinity to us (I assume it is because we are sinners and would die if we ever saw His Holiness). We use anthropomorphism in our daily life to express our feelings and thoughts about things we cannot comprehend.
Arbenit (Ben) Rrustemaj
Comment number 5.
I really enjoyed presentation from brother Wilfred Nyambaka. He was very eloquent in describing how God was active in the Scripture with people who did not have knowledge of the Word of God. The way Wilfred explained the Lords revelation to the people which according to the average church going people would not be considered as channels for God’s inspiration. It is amazing to me how Christ wants us to discover Him, where in general we humans will not consider ourselves spiritually fit to receive a message from God. According to some theologians, we have to reach a certain level of spiritual maturity and then God will speak to us or even use us for His cause.
Evidently, today it was clearly that through the sacred history of the Bible, God was always involved with people who were outside of Israel and He taught them how to walk with God. I wonder how many non-Adventist people there are, who are sincerely searching for God and walking with Him. We are proud to say that we have 17 million SDA members worldwide, however I believe there are many who practice the 28 Seventh-day Fundamental Beliefs and live outside of our church.
Comment 6.
Jesus in the Qur’an, Part one
The Qur’an has mentioned Isa al-Masih in 15 suras of the Qur’an. This must mean something very special about Him! He is referred to in over 90 ayats!
Jesus/Isa is the “way” (al sirat mustaqueem): 43:61.
Jesus/Isa is the “truth” (al haq): 19:34.
Jesus/Isa is the “life” (Min Rouhina): 21:91, 66:12 Jesus/Isa:
Spoke from the cradle: 5:110, 19:24, 19:29–33.
Conceived supernaturally through a virgin named Mary and spoken into being (fayakun): 3:47,
3:59, 19:20.
Conceived by the Spirit of Allah (Rouh Al-Qudus): 21:91, 66:12.
Of Allah’s Spirit (Rouhana Allah): 19:17, 21:91, 66:12.
A Spirit of/from Allah (Rouh minhu from Allah): 4:171.
Strengthened/led (ayyadhu) by the Holy Spirit (Rouh Qudus): 2:87, 2:253, 5:110.
He and Allah are Lord (rab): 9:31.
Is the gospel or good news: 3:45.
Sent down (anzalata) from Allah: 3:53.
Sent from heaven (metaphorical in Sufi tradition): 5:114-115.
Is the Word of Allah (kalimatu Allah): 3:39, 3:45, 4:171.
John the Baptist confirms Jesus/Isa as “Word”: 3:39.
A son pure, without sin (zakiyyah): 3:46, 19:19.
Had no vanity or wickedness: 19:32.
Not overbearing or miserable (jabbaran shaqiyyan): 19:32.
Is righteous (saliheen): 3:46, 6:85.
Near to Allah (muqarrabeen, a special place of honor), he is the only one clearly given this
position in the Qur’an: 3:45.
Comment 7
Jesus in the Qur’an, Part two
The Qur’an has mentioned Isa al-Masih in 15 suras(Chapters) of the Qur’an. This must mean something very special about Him! He is referred to in over 90 ayaty(Verses)!
position in the Qur’an: 3:45.
Is mediator/noble/exalted (wajihan or wajih) now and hereafter (This was an exclusive attribute
given only to Isa and Moses, who interestingly, were the two covenant presenters): 3:45.
Is intercessor (shafa’a); an exclusive right of Allah to grant and assumed for Isa (according to
some Sufi interpretations): 2:255, 21:28.
Is the straight path (siratun mistaqueem): 3:51, 43:61.
Given the secrets of the unseen (ghyab) (supernatural): 3:44.
Allah’s favor was on him: 5:110, 43:59.
Allah gave him “favor” and prophet status “above others”: 2:253.
Allah blessed (mubarak) him wherever he was: 19:31.
Given wisdom and revelation of the Old Testament and Gospel: 3:48, 2:136, 19:30, 43:63,
57:27.
Allah revealed His will to Jesus/Isa: 4:163.
Allah made a covenant with him: 33:7.
Is like (is the second) Adam: 3:59.
Called the messiah: 3:45, 4:157, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17 (twice), 5:72 (twice), 5:75, 9:30, 9:31.
Coming to attest the law: 3:50.
Given authority to institute things previously forbidden: 3:50.
A “mercy from Allah” (rahmatun): 19:21.
Was a clear sign (be-yinat, meaning “clear and without doubt”) unto men (all mankind): 2:87,
19:21, 21:91, 43:61.
Showed clear signs (be-yinat) of Allah: 2:253, 3:49-50, 5:114, 43:63.
Allah gave clear miracles to him: 2:253.
Given power to breathe/create life from clay: 3:49, 5:110.
Healed the blind and lepers: 3:49, 5:110.
Had power to raise the dead: 3:49, 5:110.
Miraculously brings food to earth from heaven: 5:112–118.
People plotted (against him): 3:54.
Called “liar” and was “slain” (taqutulun): 2:8, 5:70.
Comment 8
Jesus in the Qur’an, Part three
The Qur’an has mentioned Isa al-Masih in 15 suras(Chapters) of the Qur’an. This must mean something very special about Him! He is referred to in over 90 ayats(Verses)!
Died (mutawafeka is from the Arabic verb tawwafa (cause to die) while amutu is rooted in mata
(died)): 3:55, 4:159, 5:117, 19:33.
Resurrected from the dead (yum uba’athu): 19:33, (possibly 6:122).
Ascended up to Allah in heaven: 3:55, 4:158.
Coming back on judgment day (yum al-qiyama): 3:55, 4:159,43:61.
A sign of and knows the hour of judgment: 43:61.
A messenger/apostle (rasul): 4:157, 5:75.
A prophet (nabyyun) of Allah: 19:30.
A servant (abd Allah) of Allah: 4:172, 19:30, 43:59.
A faithful (shahid) witness for Allah: 4:159, 5:117.
Peace (salaam) rests on him: 19:33.
An example to the children of Israel: 43:59.
Inspired disciples (al-hawariyun) to have faith in Allah: 5:111.
Disciples are Allah’s helpers (ansar Allah) of the revelation of Jesus/Isa: 3:52, 61:14.
His disciples have power over their enemies: 61:14.
Disciples are witnesses to the truth of Jesus/Isa: 5:113.
We are ordered to obey (atee'uon) him: 3:50, 43:63.
We are ordered to believe (aamanou) in him: 4:159, 5:111.
Ordered to follow (ettabio'un) him: 3:55, 43:61.
His followers are superior (fawqua) to those who disbelieve: 3:55.
His followers are acceptable (true believers) (aamanou minhum) to Allah: 57:27
Comment 9
The Ten Commandments in the Quran
1. “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him…” Al-Isra 17.023
“If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” Al-Anbiya 21.22
“For we assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": An-Nahl 16.036
2. “…but shun the abomination of idols” Al-Hajj 22.30
“Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." Al-Anaam 6.74
“And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making straightway for Hell!" Ibrahim 14.30
“Remember Ibrahim said: "O my Lord! Make this city one of peace and security: and
preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. Ibrahim 14.35
“And he said: "For you, ye have taken (for worship) idols besides Allah...on the Day of
Judgment…your abode will be the Fire, and ye shall have none to help." Al-Ankaboot 29.25
3. “The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited.” Al-Araf 7.180
4. “Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all)
governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah,
the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!” Al-Araf 7.54
“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." So We made it [the Sabbath] an example to their own time and to their posterity and a lesson to those who fear Allah.” Al-Baqara 2.65-66
“And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded
Comment 9
The Ten Commandments of the Quran
1. “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him…” Al-Isra 17.023
“If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” Al-Anbiya 21.22
“For we assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": An-Nahl 16.036
2. “…but shun the abomination of idols” Al-Hajj 22.30
“Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." Al-Anaam 6.74
“And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making straightway for Hell!" Ibrahim 14.30
“Remember Ibrahim said: "O my Lord! Make this city one of peace and security: and
preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. Ibrahim 14.35
“And he said: "For you, ye have taken (for worship) idols besides Allah...on the Day of
Judgment…your abode will be the Fire, and ye shall have none to help." Al-Ankaboot 29.25
3. “The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited.” Al-Araf 7.180
4. “Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all)
governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah,
the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!” Al-Araf 7.54
“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." So We made it [the Sabbath] an example to their own time and to their posterity and a lesson to those who fear Allah.” Al-Baqara 2.65-66
“And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded
Comment 10
The Ten Commandments in the Quran
4.“And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded
them: "Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath." And we took from them a solemn
covenant.” Al-Baqara 4.154
5. “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor.” Al-Isra 17.23
6. “Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.” Al-Isra 17.31
“…Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” Al-Anaam 6.151
7. “Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). Al-Isra 17.032
“women…that they will not commit adultery (or fornication)”… Al-Mumtahina 60.12
8. “O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of fealty to thee… that they will not steal…” Al-Mumtahina 60.12
"Turn ye back to your father, and say, 'O our father! behold! thy son committed theft! we bear witness only to what we know, and we could not well guard against the unseen!” Yusuf 12.81
“But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” Al-Maeda 5.39
9. “…shun the word that is false, Al-Hajj 22.30
“…and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fallon you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies! Al-Ghafir 40.28
“Woe to the falsehood-mongers”. Adh-Dhariyat 51.10
“It is those who believe not in the Signs of Allah that forge falsehood: it is they who lie! “An-Nahl 16.105
“Behold! How they invent a lie against Allah! But that by itself is a manifest sin!” An-Nisa 4.5
“If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee, say: "Come! Let us gather together, - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!" Aal-E-Imran 3.61
“Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.” Al-Isra 17.35
10. “And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others: To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things.” An-Nisa 4.32
“Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it…” Al-Isra 17.34
Reflection Assng. # 5
The topic: Guidelines for interpretation of scripture (Chapter vii) covers an important issue to be remembered especially by every Adventist. When coming to bible interpretation, some tend use Ellen White a way that affects negatively instead of positively as it ought to be. If her interpretation of scripture is used as an “end” of bible study, replacing personal exegesis of a text of study, we fail to listen to the bible as well as to her own admonition that her writings are to be read as the “lesser light”.
Unfortunately, this tendency is common among our church members and as a result there is less effort in searching of light which in turn has led to the growth of the number of spiritual infants among our church members.
If there will be a revival in the church, this is one of the things that need to set straight. If we as people will be prepared to stand in the soon coming “Shaking time” is no doubt we need more of careful personal search of spiritual light and close consideration of the bible by which we have to stand or fall.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i
#4
This post is based on the 9th chapter, What Does the Bible Say, in Dr. Martin Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. I blog here specifically on the section, The Natural and the Spiritual, which highlights that Scripture does not teach a dichotomy between the spiritual or natural, implying that neither should theology be separated from science or reason from faith. This reading reminded me of a brilliant presentation I recently heard –and largely disagreed with- by the extraordinary neuroanatomist, Jill Taylor. Taylor shares the story of her massive stroke years ago and how she was able to realize the intricate details of her brain shutting down while she was in the middle of the stroke. In her fascinating presentation, she held a real human brain to highlight how distinct and separate the human mind really is, with a left hemisphere that is entirely separate from the right hemisphere save their one connection to communicate with each other called the corpus callosum. She experienced a stroke in the left side of her brain, which is the side that is all about logic, reason, and the individual. Therefore, Taylor described that as her left brain was shutting down, she would daze into the euphoria of living only with the right hemisphere of her brain, which took her to a place this brain scientist called Nirvana. I realized the New Age basis of her presentation. I also realized how important it is for Seventh-day Adventist Christians to address the issue of whether the spiritual and the natural exists separately or as one. A New Age Nirvana experience is one implication of a theology based on the model that the spiritual and natural exist separately, an implication I refuse to accept.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Chapter 17
In this chapter Gerhard Pfandl gives very clear and balanced guidance on interpreting the writings of Ellen White. He argues for a hermeneutic that closely models and resembles the hermeneutic of biblical interpretation. His argument suggests that since the inspired writings of Ellen White are no less inspired than sacred scripture the same hermeneutical principals should be employed in the interpretation of both. I particularly appreciated his focus on her understanding of truth which I believed properly highlighted the relationship between truth and interpretation. I believe her position of progressive truth deserves further consideration, particularly her emphasis on being open to new light. Equally important to her understanding of truth is her emphasis on obedience to truth as well as openness. I also enjoyed his treatment of Ellen Whites approach to biblical interpretation, particularly his distinction between her exegetical treatment and homiletical use of scripture. The test case he presented helped to demonstrate her use with great clarity and helps the reader of her writings to distinguish between the two. Part of the challenge of pastors and theologians to continue to educate the members of the church as to the dynamics of the two different approaches and how the differ in both their description and prescription of the biblical text. I was surprised to see the exegetical soundness of her interpretive framework. The depth and breath of her understanding of exegetical analysis is quite impressive considering the time of her writing ministry. To include her sound interpretation of scripture she also demonstrated what Pfandl refers to as “common sense.” I believe this may be the most important component of her approach to biblical interpretation, which also serves as basic principle of interpreting her own writings. I believe it is this approach more than any other that will prevent readers from deriving extreme interpretations from her writings. Such an approach also applied to the bible would be equally beneficial when interpreting the bible, while not necessarily recognized as a hermeneutical principal or exegetical approach by most bible expositors it nonetheless represents a relevant principle when interpreting both the inspired writings of Ellen White and the bible. Finally, her continuing development in her writings in the form of modifying statements deserves further consideration both for the interpretation of her writings as well as the writings of biblical authors. This view of scriptures allows for an expanded meaning of scripture both with in its proper context as well as its contemporary relevance.
Shiphrah Fepulea'i
Post #5
Reflecting on Fernando Canale’s section on ‘Revelation and Inspiration’ in the book, Understanding Scripture, a number of questions come to mind. Why study Greek and Hebrew words if we believe God inspired thoughts instead of words? Granted, words and thoughts are intimately linked. And God did dictate some passages in Scripture. Yet sometimes it seems we study all passages in Scripture as if we still believe in verbal inspiration! When we turned from verbal inspiration for thought inspiration, did we forget to re-evaluate the drive and purpose behind our study of biblical languages? That is, when I exegete the words of a biblical passage that God did not dictate word for word, why would I preach about how significant it is that the author used a certain word instead of another similar word if I believe God inspired an over-arching thought rather than divinely-selected human words? Finally, is it possible that a perfect God inspired imperfect writers? When the book of Revelation is read in Greek, grammatical inconsistencies are evident whereas the book of John is much better written in the Greek. Thus, scholars suspect that John wrote the Gospel according to John with the help of an editor while he wrote Revelation on his own in exile on the isle of Patmos. This means John was not a Greek word-smith. Yet somehow, via the mystery of the Holy Spirit, the inspired thoughts still permeates through the shortcomings of every Bible writer’s human skills and selected words to convey to us that God loves us, died, rose, and reigns to save us for we could never have saved ourselves.
Response #3 to Deirdre's Reflection #4:
Deirdre, I really appreciate the approach you're proposing. It's easy enough to simply say, "Well, the Bible teaches it, so we need to believe it," without considering the relationship of a given doctrine to Christ. I think that's why there are people who get wrapped up in all kinds of interesting ideas (such as bringing back the feast days, etc.). I'm amazed at how far some people even take some of our standard doctrines because they're done apart from Christ.
At the same time, your post raises a question for me: just how many of "the 28" can somebody challenge before we should begin to question if the Adventist church is the right place for them? 1 or 2 might be fine...but what if they disagree with a third of them, or if those 1 or 2 are things like Christ, the Bible, the Sabbath, God, etc.? Is the SDA church really the best place for a person who rejects any one of these "foundational" doctrines?
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assigment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assigment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assigment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Revelation/Inspiration/Hermeneutics
Martin Hanna Ph.D.
Assignment #7
My comment today is in regard of Dr. Hanna’s last presentation about “A theology of the knowledge of God.” That was a very interesting topic since I’ve been struggling with such a subject for some times now. I’ve unsuccessfully searched the web and most of the literatures that are available to find an Adventist approach on a subject related to “how man became like God after the fall.” That is actually the underlying declaration of Gen 3:22 where God said: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil.” I’ve posted about that subject before and I’m still wrestling with it.
I understand the concepts developed by Dr. Hanna in regard to foreknowledge and predestined knowledge. But, what about experiential vs existential knowledge? My understanding is that God had the existential knowledge in regard to human condition, but only Jesus’ conception made God understand the experiential knowledge. Therefore, if man came to the experiential knowledge by eating of the fruit of good and evil, how did he become like God? God could not have had the experiential knowledge of sin.
I’ve concluded, after some study, that rather than becoming like God, man was like God in regard to the knowledge of good and evil, now he has come to the experiential knowledge. Therefore, the verse, to my understanding should be translated: “Behold the man was one of Us to know good and evil.” That doesn’t solve the problem entirely for me, but preserves the theological problem that I had before.
Now, when it comes to “predestined and foreknowledge,” I want to believe that our understanding of the knowledge of God will always be limited. I believe that Dr. Hanna is right: God can have both. I still believe that work can be done to improve our knowledge, but I tend to think that Ellen White is also right when she says that there are some who think they can reason on the mystery of sin (that is not the exact quote). That is not a possible undertaking for human since sin has no basis. The same way, the realm of the knowledge of God is beyond human grasp since our knowledge is limited by our human condition. Not to say that it can’t be improved, but certain things remain in the realm of mystery that the human brain cannot process and remain a believer. I also understand the debate between faith and reason. The reason we believe is first and foremost because of the Word of God and the testimonies that we have. For me, the notion of belief implies in and of itself a certain mystery. I don’t think this is man’s duty to uncover the mysteries that God has hidden perhaps for our own good. There may be a reason for some mysteries.
Res #5
I want to talk a little bit about the principle Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura and how we can imply these principles in our congregations, or how it works in real life of our church members. I’m going to talk about my church in Moldova, where predominant church is Orthodox Church. I think that somehow this cultural and religious aspect plays kind of role in life of Adventist believers. First of all for Orthodox Church the principle Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist because it’s not biblical. They believe that since Jesus was teaching his disciple orally, it means that oral teachings and tradition are also very important for Christian faith. Therefore for Orthodox believers the authority of the Bible and authority of sacred traditions are equal. But most interesting, is the fact, that common orthodox believers think that all teachings and traditions of their church are found in Bible. And when you show them that according the Bible the baptism of the children is wrong, they cannot believe it’s true. Why is it so? They never studied the Bible. They believed all the teaching and traditions that they heard from their parents or from different people. They live in the culture and environment where everybody believes in that. The Orthodox Church has more authority for them that the Scripture alone. It’s difficult to explain them what’s wrong with this kind of teachings. Or what’s wrong with the celebration of Trinity, or of holy Mother of Jesus. Majority does and believes so, therefore it means that it is truth. Especially if you were born and raised in this culture it’s not easy to find an approach to these people heart. I personally worked with orthodox believers and understand how strong the power of orthodox influence…(continued)
Eddly Benoit’s 5th Reflection
The hermeneutical task of interpreting the apocalyptic book of Revelation is one that many believe should be left to the experts. But when you read what the experts have to say, you are sometimes left more confused than when you started. I have come to the conclusion that understanding the book of Revelation is not that hard if you take the following three elements into consideration: 1) appreciate the fact that Revelation is a letter written to actual churches in Asia which at the time were dealing with real problems, very similar to the ones that the world church is dealing with today 2) understand that the symbols being used in this letter were not taken out of thin air, but they are symbols that the people at the time were familiar with, because the source and meaning of those symbols could be found in the Old Testament writings, the Jewish apocalyptic writings, and in the 1st century world symbolism of Asia, 3) last and most importantly, one must never forget that the focus of Revelation is not the beasts, or the dragon, or the women, but Jesus Christ the victor.
Eddly Benoit’s 5th Reflection
The hermeneutical task of interpreting the apocalyptic book of Revelation is one that many believe should be left to the experts. But when you read what the experts have to say, you are sometimes left more confused than when you started. I have come to the conclusion that understanding the book of Revelation is not that hard if you take the following three elements into consideration: 1) appreciate the fact that Revelation is a letter that was written to actual churches in Asia which at the time were dealing with real problems, very similar to the ones that the world church is dealing with today 2) understand that the symbols being used in this letter were not taken out of thin air, but they are symbols that the people at the time were familiar with, because the source and meaning of those symbols could be found in the Old Testament writings, the Jewish apocalyptic writings, and in the 1st century world symbolism of Asia, 3) last and most importantly, one must never forget that the focus of Revelation is not the beasts, or the dragon, or the women, but Jesus Christ the victor.
Eddly Benoit’s 6th Reflection
One of the Bible texts that I’ve always found fascinating is Genesis 15: 6 which tells us that Abram believed in God and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness. In other word, in a covenant relationship with God, faith produces righteousness (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17). The emphasis here is that Abram entrusted his future in God and in what He would do for him as opposed to what Abram could do for himself.
Many have tried to prove that Abram had an inherent holy moral character or was inherently pious, and they claim that to be the reason why he was declared righteous by God. I believe that proper hermeneutic will bring one to a different conclusion. What’s really happening here is that: God is conferring a divine sentence of approval on Abram not because he was perfect, but because Abram had a right relationship with God. He trusted in God and was obedient to him. And because of his faith which was manifested by his obedience, God chose to declare him righteous.
The Apostle Paul going against the theological winds of his time, which said that Abraham was righteousness because of his perfect deeds, went on to say that the righteousness of God, which I'm defining as the acceptance of God, comes by a faith response and not by works. He illustrated that by explaining that the free gift of righteousness was received by Abraham because of his faith and not earned by human works. And that’s the reason why the Apostle Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 (in Romans 4:3) as evidence that the patriarch himself received justification by believing and not by works.
Pierre Desruisseaux
Assignment #8
Comment on Eddly Benoit's post.
I agree with you my friend that the understanding of righteousness by faith has always been a challenge even for our church. I believe that one thing impresses God: obedience, and another makes Him move: faith.
The two go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other, for one leads to the other. I believe that fear has undermined the work of many. Our "people" is too much sin conscious instead of grace conscious. As long as we focus on sin, fear is going to be the driving force behind our actions and therefore, we will try to earn salvation by work instead of faith through grace, which is the message of the Gospel.
I truly believe that obedience is important and must lead to faith in order for it to be effective. Abram believe and it was counted for him as righteousness. We can believe in the work of Jesus and the saving power of His blood. He is our righteousness. That promise is the good news and sets us free to live and love knowing that our place is guaranteed in heaven. That is my view on the righteousness of Abram and the message that we should be preaching today. Sin has crippled too many and we (as preachers) have worked more on fear of damnation to bring people in instead of the love of God which takes away the sins of the world. I’ll stop here before I start preaching this.
Comment #5
My comment is on the chapter Interpretation of the Gospels and Epistles in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. I appreciate the author’s emphasis on understanding the historical and socio-political background of the times in which these books were composed. I feel that as readers and preachers of the word we make too much of an effort to make Jesus a contemporary, 21st century character. By doing this we are often guilty of doing a disservice to what the text actually has to say about him. I am not saying that the reader and preacher shouldn’t strive to make the message of these books relevant to the 21st century, but I don’t think it needs to be done at the expense of what the text originally made nor at the expense of true, historical Jesus. We do not need to make Jesus “cool” in order for our contemporary audiences to accept him. We need to realize and understand that the historical, authentic Jesus living in 1st century Palestine was as “cool” as it gets. And we need to preach this very Jesus using language that is relevant to our generation without stripping the historical Jesus of any characteristic which the word actually reveals about him. The same things that made Jesus stand out among his contemporaries are the very things that still stand out among us today. We do not need to invent things about him that will appeal to our audience. The fact of the matter is Jesus revealed God’s righteous attributes in the flesh: His love, His mercy, His compassion for mankind, His generosity, and His selflessness. These wonderful attributes still attract human beings today. We do not need to portray Jesus as a gangster from the streets of New York nor as a movie star from Hollywood. He was the eternal loving God manifested in human flesh: 1st century, Jewish flesh.
Comment # 6
My comment is on the chapter entitled the Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic. The topic covered in this chapter is along the lines of my research assignment for this class, and I did indeed use it as one of my sources. Jon Paulien and I are in agreement on several points. First of all the importance of the historical context in which the authors of Daniel and Revelation live in; their audiences and circumstances. But even more important is the fact that the message behind Daniel and Revelation should tell us something about the character of God and therefore should be relevant to all audiences despite of geographic or historical position. Prophecy (including Apocalyptic) was not written to satisfy our “curiosity” for the future events. Although there is a predictive component within prophecy, and God does tell the end from the beginning to make his power and omniscience known to the world, the reader is still responsible for the faithful interpretation of what scripture is telling him/her as a follower of God. The individual must go beyond “date-setting” and ask him/herself what these potential events mean in the broader scope of God, His government, and His plans for mankind. A hermeneutic of Apocalyptic that is content with simply configuring historical dates is negligent and in many cases irrelevant to real life. Many of us have been faithful in our readings of the historical books, the wisdom literature, the prophets, the gospels and the letters of the New Testament. However, we sometimes fail to give the books of Daniel and Revelation the same place in our devotional lives. These books are rich in practical counsel and spiritual encouragement, and perhaps more than any of the others highlight the sovereignty of God, the beauty of Christ, and the ultimate victory of Good over Evil. I encourage you to include these books in your masterpiece as you endeavor to paint the perfect picture of God.
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.
E. G. White says the best way used to communicate to the people during His time was the use of parables. but, parables got most of the times a different connotation. We see miracles as hidden ways of transmitting some with information with out a third person understanding. After giving the parable of the sower, Jesus told His disciples that it was given to them to understand it yet they also together with the crowd did not understand the meaning of the parable, and they had to come and ask Him about it.
it is very interesting that the parables were at the same time destined to reveal more the will of God but also hide it. the parables were both inclusive and exclusive. I do not know what determines them to be a veiled truth or a revelation to the people, is it our attitude that decides, I am yet to figure it out.
I have come to approach the words of God in such away that, after doing my best in being faithful in interpreting the word I should always consider the other side of the coin. And it is the work or the interpreter to create notice and present the relation between these two sides.
i wanted to come back on what we discuss about in class, about God not breaking a single law of nature while in performing miracle. God does not need to turn off the law of nature in other to intervene miraculously in the affairs of man, be it the calling of dead back to life, the turning of water into wine and a stick into a snake they are all according to natural laws, though would not have been produced without God standing behind them.
That means that, God in making the world, made it in a such away that it could be flexible to accommodate divine intervention without breaking of the laws of nature. the laws of nature are also God 's law , jus as the ten commandments are His law.
By saying this, I also believe that, even so it is with the moral, precisely the sabbath day. God made the sabbath day in such away that i could accommodate some works without the breaking of the sabbath law that prohibits works in that day; but i will say that He alone just like with the miracles, should stand behind each of these works to make it confirmable with the law of sabbath.
I think we are not prepared to deal with this kind of idea. thats is we are not prepared to accept., just like the Pharisees were disturbed because Jesus had told them that "my Father was at work until now"
Response to Eddly Benoit's 5th Reflection
I agree with you Eddly that the experts definitely do a good job at confusing the "lay" reader. I also agree with the three principles you suggested for the interpretation of Apocalyptic, especially the third. The focus of Revelation is without a doubt Jesus Christ the Victor
Response to Pierre 11/19 Post
Hello there Friend,
I must agree with you that this statement in Gen. 3:23 has always been a bit troubling to me “…Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” This is a very difficult statement to digest, because trying to understand what God meant when he said that man is like us in that they now know ‘evil’ could lead to confusion about the origin of sin or even more questions about the extent of God’s knowledge. Did God mean that man now knows what He foreknew was going to happen? That’s just one of a thousand questions that can be asked. But here is what I believe; we should not forget that man was not the first being to sin. Lucifer and 1/3 of the angles were kicked out of heaven because they sinned, and that was before the fall of man. God and the other angelic beings were “aware of” or “knew” that as a result of Lucifer's sin, evil now existed in the universe, but man was still unaware of that. Could this be the evil that God was talking about when he said that man has become like one of US (the rest of the universe), knowing good and evil?
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Assignment #5
The Nature of Christ
The discussions in class concerning the nature of Christ have indeed led me into deeper searching that has finally been fruitful. My study has helped me create a framework within which I can reason the issue rationally. In my experience, I have realized that presuppositions can create a block against free and rational thinking for this and other issues. Figuring out Philippians 2:6-8 in line with Dr. Hanna’s explanations, I feel comfortable with following conclusion; Christ was 100% human and 100% divine.” He was in the very nature of God but made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant and was made in human likeness”. The issue of whether he was in the pre- or post Adamic natures calls for an explanation of how a single individual shares in the divine nature and in the human nature at the same time or how is the person related to deity and to the world.
I feel that the following description from Herman Bavinck answers the issue well “True, there is an intimate relationship between the two natures and their properties and powers. But it is a relationship which comes into being in the unity of the person. A stronger, deeper, more intimate union is inconceivable. Just as — to make a comparison and not an equating of the two — soul and body are united in one person and nevertheless remain distinguished from each other in essence and properties, so in Christ the same person is the subject of both natures. The difference between soul and body is the assumption and condition of the inner union of the two in one and the same human being, and so too the difference between the Divine and the human nature is the condition and basis of their union in Christ.
The welding of the two natures into one and the communication of the properties from one to another make for no more intimate relationship, but make for a mingling or fusion, and, in point of fact, impoverish the fulness which is in Christ. They subtract either from the Divine, or from the human, nature, or from both natures, and weaken the word of the Scripture that in Him, that is, in Christ, the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwells (Col. 2:9 and 1:19). That fulness is maintained only if both natures are distinguished from each other, communicating their properties and attributes not to each other, but placing them, rather, in the service of the one person. So it is always the same rich Christ who in His humiliation and exaltation commands the properties and powers of both natures and who precisely by that means can bring those works to pass, which, as the works of the Mediator, are distinguished on the one hand from the works of God and on the other hand from the works of man, and which take a unique place in the history of the world”.
Samuel Juma Nyarige
Assignment #5
The Nature of Christ
The discussions in class concerning the nature of Christ have indeed led me into deeper searching that has finally been fruitful. My study has helped me create a framework within which I can reason the issue rationally. In my experience, I have realized that presuppositions can create a block against free and rational thinking for this and other issues. Figuring out Philippians 2:6-8 in line with Dr. Hanna’s explanations, I feel comfortable with following conclusion; Christ was 100% human and 100% divine.” He was in the very nature of God but made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant and was made in human likeness”. The issue of whether he was in the pre- or post Adamic natures calls for an explanation of how a single individual shares in the divine nature and in the human nature at the same time or how is the person related to deity and to the world.
I feel that the following description from Herman Bavinck answers the issue well “True, there is an intimate relationship between the two natures and their properties and powers. But it is a relationship which comes into being in the unity of the person. A stronger, deeper, more intimate union is inconceivable. Just as — to make a comparison and not an equating of the two — soul and body are united in one person and nevertheless remain distinguished from each other in essence and properties, so in Christ the same person is the subject of both natures. The difference between soul and body is the assumption and condition of the inner union of the two in one and the same human being, and so too the difference between the Divine and the human nature is the condition and basis of their union in Christ.
The welding of the two natures into one and the communication of the properties from one to another make for no more intimate relationship, but make for a mingling or fusion, and, in point of fact, impoverish the fulness which is in Christ. They subtract either from the Divine, or from the human, nature, or from both natures, and weaken the word of the Scripture that in Him, that is, in Christ, the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwells (Col. 2:9 and 1:19). That fulness is maintained only if both natures are distinguished from each other, communicating their properties and attributes not to each other, but placing them, rather, in the service of the one person. So it is always the same rich Christ who in His humiliation and exaltation commands the properties and powers of both natures and who precisely by that means can bring those works to pass, which, as the works of the Mediator, are distinguished on the one hand from the works of God and on the other hand from the works of man, and which take a unique place in the history of the world”.
Nyarige …
Response to Branden’s comment 2, (November)
I agree with you brother that both the Holy Spirit and practical study are important in understanding and doing the right hermeneutics. Actually the Holy Spirit addresses our faith while studying addresses our reason. Ellen G White somewhere in her writings say that the “Holy Spirit does not bless ignorance” and Paul admonishes believers to study so as to show themselves “God’s workmen who need not be ashamed.”
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics
Blog 2
As I consider the cosmic Christ concept presented by Dr. Hanna, I meditate on my paper that I plan to write. It will deal with the issue of the Eternality of the Son. I find it hermeneutically contradictory to call someone the son while not considering then subordinate and a product of creative generation. It seems that we western minds have so focused on the idea of the trinity that we have neglected their unity, in so much that we have taken the manifestation of the of God as Son and backwardly applied son-ship to the Eternal God. That does not make much sense to me. It appears what do we do with passages like “you are mind son, today I have begotten you”? This clearly suggests son-ship has origination. If son-ship has origination then 1 of 2 things is being implied: either that the 2nd person of the Godhead is a created being, or that son-ship is a created thing that is part of the incarnation of the 2nd person of the Godhead. I cannot think of one way in which one can be a legitimate son, and not be a created thing. In addition, this seems to make the incarnation much larger, because it means that the word took on a role up to that point never experience by any aspect of God. This means that God became a father and God became a son. So not only did the experience of the word take on human attributes, but the experience of the 1st person of the Godhead took on father attributes.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics
Blog 3
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
This passage comes to us on the heels of the prophecy that light will shine on the land of Zebulon and Naphtali, Galilee of the gentiles. If one is a Christian and has read through the New Testament briefly, one will recognize that that Galilee prophecy was quote when referencing the ministry of Jesus. So it is safe to say, from a holistic OT and NT perspective, that Christ fulfilled that Isaiah Prophecy. With the above quote passage coming directly after that prophecy, let us now consider the passage. There are parallels in the passage. “Unto us” is used twice. “A child is born” is synonymous with “a son is given”. The government is for the shoulders of the child to be born. The identity of the one with shoulders big enough for the entire government (empire) is “Wonderful Counselor”, “Mighty God”, “Everlasting Father”, and “Prince of Peace”. In this naming sequence I see a title underscored by three names. The Titled identity of the child to come is the mighty God; the specific identity of the one who is to come is the Wonderful counselor, Everlasting father, and the Prince of peace.
This passage speaks to the plural unity of God: Wonderful counselor being the holy Spirit, Everlasting father being God the father, and prince of peace being God the son Jesus Christ. The interesting thing is that all this comes into being. The passage says that his name will be called; it does not say that his name is called. Therefore for Isaiah, The one to come was not then the wonderful counselor , or the everlasting father, or the prince of peace, because unto us the child had not been born yet. He was in fact the might God. Only upon being born do all these 3 manifestations take on their appropriate name.
This passage informs us that the one to come is the mighty God, is the counselor, is the father, and is the prince. The one is all 3. The child to be born is all three of them and yet he is most assuredly the prince. The passage is trying to cause us to understand that God upon incarnation did something unique in their relationship to each other and to all of creation, especially humanity.
The idea of everlasting has many confused. There is a phrase in the Bible that says God is from everlasting to everlasting:
Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psa 103:17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children
Psa 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.
Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
notice that none of these text state that the father is everlasting. The all say that God is everlasting. The Lord is ever lasting. The idea of everlasting in Hebrew is the idea of forever. Forever has a specific starting point and does not end. So forever has a beginning;Everlasting has a beginning. when you read things like from “everlasting to everlasting”, the writer is saying that from a specific point (probably when the writer is writing) in both directions (past and future) The Lord God is. He always is. However when we read Isaiah, the prophet simply says “the everlasting father”. That means that at some point in time Fatherhood had a beginning, and according to the Isaiah passage that beginning was when “unto us a child is born unto us a Son is given”
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics
Blog 4
AS I continue my meditation of the eternality of the Son, I am struck at how there is no son language proper for God in the OT. There is the Spirit of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord, the Lord God, the Lord, the mighty God, and yet there is no son language except as it pertains to the prophecy of the incarnate Christ.
All throughout the OT there is the prophecy of the seed, the prophet like moses, the ruler from Judah with scepter, the star of balaam, the Son of david, the child who is counselor father and son simultaneously, the suffering servant, etc etc. yet there is nothing that says there currecntly exists someone called the son.
Consequently, the idea of God as father is not as frequent as we would believe in the OT either. Everything thing in the OT Bible points forward to the son. I have found nothing that could definitively say that the Son as a divine entity existed. Of course there is the Angel of the Lord, but he is not called the son. The OT is clear that the son is to come, and come he does in the NT. The OT is full of the angel of the Lord, but while the New testament mysteriously lacks the angel of the lord . It is as if the 2nd person of the Godhead held the position of chief messenger (angel) of the Lord in the OT, as he waited for the time to become the incarnate son.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics
Blog 5
While it was Clement to seem to have first been willing to construct a theology that attempted to homogenize platonic thought with Christian belief, it appears to be Tertullian who first adequately explained the concept of the Trinity that was satisfactory to the then known Christian world. He is the first one to have state the “one substance and 3 persons” idea, as he stood up to Prazeas and his modalistic idea that the 3 persons of the godhead were in fact 3 different ways God manifested himself (sometimes as Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit). However, it appears that it was Origen who first gave us the understanding that Christ as the Eternal begotten of Son of Father, begotten before all creation. This appears to be based on Colossians 1:12-20, where Paul says that God made all things through the Son, and that all things are held together by the Son, who is before all things.
Arius and his Arian heresy argued that the Word was not coeternal with God. Arius argued that the Word was not God eternal, but rather the first born of all creation. This he took from Colossians 1:12-20 as did Origen for his position. He had no problem with the Word existing before the incarnation, but declared that the Word had been created before all other things. The Popular phrase among Arians was this motto: “there was when He was not.” This is due to the concept of “Son” used by Pauline writings as being the creator of all things. The council of Nicea declared Arius a heretic and developed a creed which declared that Jesus Christ was one substance, homoousios, with the Father. This is proven by the fact that in the Nicean Creed is no mention of “the Word” proper at all, but the Son, and so the last paragraph of the Nicean Creed says the following: “but those who say that there was when he was not, and that before being begotten he was not, or that he came from that which was not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousia), or that he is created, or mutable, these the catholic church anathemizes.” The issue in fact is that the theologians equated the eternal Word with the Son, and so to not lose the eternal Word thay made the Son Eternal. Arius was deemed a heretic. While the Apostles’ Creed emphasizes the fact that Jesus did not simply appear on earth but was in fact born in the flesh (to stand against both Marcion and Gnosticism), the Nicean Creed made the Son of God eternal.
Revelation Inspiration Hermeneutics
Blog 6
The Godhead: an Analogous Representation
Picture if you will, not a form of a man on a throne, with another man sitting at His side, but rather an Eternal Body of formless “Water”. This “Water” is completely happy and satisfied with It-self and has need of nothing. It loves to revel in Its own glory. It decided to create things like unto It-self, but when they are created Its glory must be hidden from them, for they cannot take it. Its glory is to them a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24), not that it would destroy them, but It is too bright and too holy even for them. So the “Water” surrounded It-self with darkness and thick clouds (Psalm 18:11) When we remember that the “Water” is surrounded by the fire, then we remember that boiling “Water” produces “Water Vapor”. Now the “Vapor” is still the “Water”, just in a different state, being invisible as well as form-less and space-less, making it possible for the “Water Vapor” to be everywhere simultaneously. It is the “Water” in essence, but not in form. They are one, and yet two. We must remember that God’s throne is called His holy mountain. Therefore, let us think of a mountain top which is surrounded by darkness and thick clouds, which are fiery and very tempestuous (Psalm 18:11; 50:3; 97:1-7). The Glory of God can be likened to everlasting burnings (Isaiah 33:14). Remember also that the “Water” is a boiling hot substance, producing a gaseous invisible “Water Vapor”. The beings created cannot enter into this cloud. The Glory of the “Water” cannot be viewed or understood by the created beings. Therefore, in order for the “Eternal Water and Vapor” to interact with Its creatures, in order them to understand It better, It condenses every attribute of Themself into a form that Their creatures can understand, and sends It out below the fire, where It cools, becoming an “Ice” form of the created beings. When the creatures see It, they think It is one of them, but in actuality the “Ice” proceed forth and came from the bosom of the “Water”, to declare, show forth, explain, praise, and speak for the “Water”. So now we have the “Eternal Water, Vapor, and Ice”. All are the “Water” in Essence, but not in form. Each differs in function, but All are one substance, essentially united in thought, motive, and desire. They also can “merge” back into Each Other at anytime, exchanging “fluid” (substance and essence) between each other, and yet they will still retain their individuality in unity. The “Water” boiling would be The First Person of the Godhead, the “Water Vapor” would be the Third Person of the Godhead, and the “Water Ice” form would be the Second Person of the Godhead. They are One in Divine Essence, but different in form, role, and function. They are the same yet different.
This seems to be the concept that the eastern theologians are going for. So on the one hand western theology and wording lends to Arianism, while eastern theology and wording could lead to modalism.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i
#6
In the book, Understanding Scripture, Lael Caesar contributes to the fascinating discussion on Hermeneutics and Culture. Reflecting on what Caesar wrote about the understanding of God among people who suffer oppression, I recalled from experience how powerful it is to hear a sermon by someone who God delivered from suffering. I have heard the powerful testimonies of those who have been delivered by God from various forms of oppression, such as color-based racism and gender-based prejudices, stirring my soul to believe that my God could deliver me too from trials and problems that would otherwise oppress me too. Yet I have heard similar sermons preached from the pulpit that are based on a theology of God dependent on human suffering. That is, such a theology of God is so incredibly held on to by the oppressed in the context of his or her oppression that God is not explored outside the realm of suffering. Personal experience or cultural roots of oppression would then interpret biblical passages, such as Romans 5:20, to mean that grace is dependent on sin in order to abound, and abound all the more. Without the proper hermeneutics to distinguish what is biblical from cultural, a theology could develop among the oppressed, that God is who He is because of our sufferings. If proper hermeneutics were to be applied, personal experience or cultural roots would not explain the Word of God but the other way around, and oppressed theology would understand that grace does not depend on suffering in order to exist.
Shiphrah Fepulea’i
#3 (My numbering was off and I skipped from 2 to 4)
In his chapter “Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics” in the book, Understanding Scripture, Ron du Preez concludes that the goal of Christian ethics is character development. Without disagreeing, I add for clarification a few more words to his conclusion. While the study, understanding, and practice of Christian ethics helps with character development, the restoring of the image of God in our character is not the result or work of any science, study, or human somebody; It is the work of God and God alone. Not that Ron du Preez would disagree with my clarifying statement but it is a significant point that is left unmentioned. I believe it is a significant point to mention because many Seventh-day Adventist Christians study ethics as if the development of their character depended on various works or deeds of their own, such as the scrutinized examination of moral/ethical science, to help God in His work of sanctification. Yes, it is necessary for the health of a relationship with Christ to examine the Word of God but it is not in the examining of the Word of God that our character develops. Our character develops because of Jesus. With our eyes on Jesus, we naturally become changed by beholding Him. But even still, it is not in the reading of the Bible or the state of our eyes that changes us. Rather, it is the One our eyes behold that does. It is the One the Bible tells us more of that develops our character. It is all Jesus and Jesus alone.
Response to Denilson Reis from his Oct. 31 comment on chapter 15 of Understanding Scripture.
Good question! Isn't it bewildering how the Word of God can be preached with the same power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit yet be received by one while rejected by another? Not that your friend whose 'heart was not burning' rejected the sermon in your illustration but how even the, perhaps, indifference stands in stark contrast to the experience of the one whose heart did, indeed, burn and received the power of the Word.
Response to Jason O'Rourke from his 4th blog.
Wow, I haven't really thought about that. Hmm. Could it be, perhaps, that the absence or scarcity of the divine Father/Son analogy in the Old Testament is because that was exactly what the cross and Christ's life was to reveal? The Old Testament records prophecy of a Son that the New Testament records as the Son that revealed to us the Father. I'll have to keep thinking about this one! Love it. Thanks for sharing!
Elliot Lee, assignment 5:
I appreciated the thoughts on interpreting allegory in Ch. 13 of Reid. I realized that sometimes I assume that all parables are allegorical, when that is not true. Seems like a lot of parables are there mainly to get the end point of the story across, rather than attach meanings to all the details. Furthermore, it's not honest to give meanings to the details that are not supplied by the Bible itself.
I also appreciated the chapter's section on Old Testament parables. So often when I think of parables I think only of the ones Jesus told, but now that I have it in mind I will have to be more alert for parables when reading the Old Testament. I don't think anyone could use parables as well as Jesus, though!
Elliot Lee, assignment 6:
Reading ch 16 of Reid, I could relate to the "sincere-but-confused" believer described in the introduction. Sometimes it seems that the do's-and-don'ts of the Bible can be misunderstood on either side of the road - either taking every last command too personally and literally, or telling oneself "that was for them - but it doesn't apply to me". Add to this the apparent moral contradictions of Bible narrative, and it's easy to go astray without God's help. The chapter provides a good framework for interpreting the various moral issues dealt with in the Bible.
Reflection Assng. # 6
My reading on hermeneutics and culture helped me gain a more balanced approach and view on the interpretation of scripture. Specifically, I found it an important thing to learn that despite the fact that personal presuppositions do not determine what reality is, it has the power to influence the way an individual experiences that which is reality.
This is the reason why one should be careful with the approach he/she gives to scripture to help avoid the tendency to re-shape our theology and understanding of God based on wrong cultural biases. One’s culture whether good or not should not be allowed to determine what the bible says or how it ought to be understood. If this takes place, the bible looses its place as the word of God that is given to teach and correct in righteousness and perfection. The word should be allowed to stand above culture and thereby as God’s standard of living.
Personal experiences on the other hand should not be taken as the guide by which scripture should be interpreted. Even if the bible can be applied to personal situations, and addresses different circumstances in life, care should be exercised to guard against over-emphasizing one teaching of it at the loss of the holistic view of scripture.
Comment on Elloit Lee’s post#3
As Elliot says, I find it important to bear in mind the main point of the parable and thereby doing away with a tendency to add extra meanings into the single and main idea being addressed. Avoiding that as one does interpretation of parables may end up erroneous.
Elliot Lee, response to Samuel Nyarige:
The key in this class for me in making sense of the nature of Christ question was realizing that the "was He pre-fall or post-fall?" question was in many ways the same question as "was He human or divine?" and that the answer could be "both".
Elliot Lee, response to Eddly Benoit #5:
Agree on the last point about Jesus being the focus. It's easy to get caught up in the beasts and forget that Rev 1:1 essentially says that the book is a "Revealing of Jesus Christ".
Branden Stoltz
Response to Eddly Bennoit in 1st Reflection for Nov.
Eddly, your post made me think of something, does Jesus' use of parables for the reason that some will understand but others will not serve to keep people from knowing the Truth of the Kingdom of God? I guess your highlighting revealed my presupposition that God wants everyone know the Truth, but for whatever reason, He didn't teach so everyone would understand. My background is in teaching, and not leaving anyone behind is always a teacher's goal. But for Jesus, the Master Teacher, He apparently had a different standard to teach to.
Blog # 5 Hermeneutical Research Method By Alexis Rivera
Today we discussed the hermeneutical issue of 1 Corinthians 11 in which Paul shares his thoughts on whether it is appropriate or inappropriate to have a man’s/woman’s head covered or uncovered in the church. I have at times heard the entire passage (from verse 2-16) misused to “prove” that which the text was not intended for. (examples such as men should have authority over women or women should not cut their hair because it is a sign of immodesty etc). I readily admit to not really understanding what this text meant up until this point, I felt challenged by it since it was surrounded by so much controversy. But through this class I have learned a few things about taking on controversial texts.
The first is not to read the text out of context, but read the entire passage in order to understand the intent of the author. Second is to look at the cultural significance of the authors words, third to read between the lines of a text and look at implied suggestions (although this must be used with caution because it may lead to misinterpretation) fourth, to study many different viewpoints on the passage and fifth to come up with a conclusion as based on the above studies.
Now, I have not done this yet with this text, although I intend to. The point I want to make is simply this: so often I have settled for what people say about a text rather than thinking on matters for myself. This class has been one that has shaken me to the core because it messed up my traditional way of thinking and forced me to re-evaluate the way I studied scripture. I have found that the best way to do good hermeneutics is to simply start with a blank piece of paper and the passage itself: to see what the passage says to me, then ask questions about that passage and seek answers to those questions. Through this I can come up with an un-biased conclusion, or at least a conclusion that is not built up on someone else’s opinions: and I definitely want to do that with this text as with many others that are on my question mark list!
The previous blog was assignment #5 not #1
Assignment #6:
For this assignment I would like to discuss what I think we should have covered in this class that we didn’t get to because of so much dialogue. Don’t get me wrong; I enjoyed the dialogue. I think dialogue is necessary in a class like this and I very much appreciated the way Dr. Hanna pushed us to consider issues and questions before coming to a position. However, I think it would have been good if we had gone over different methods of hermeneutics and discussed their place in Seventh-day Adventist biblical studies. These criticisms (or if you like, “analysis’”) include three main types: historical criticism that focuses on the world behind the text, literary criticism that focuses on the world in the text, and reader-response criticism that focuses on the reader of the text. This could be illustrated by a painting; the one who studies the history behind the creation of the painting, the one who studies the way the details of the painting itself, and the one who studies the impressions people have about the painting. Historical criticism, as we studied in class, has been criticized by many as not studying the text itself and making it irrelevant to people’s lives now so many have moved to different types of critical analysis of Scripture. However, scholars appreciate what historical criticism has contributed to biblical scholarship, and social-scientific criticism arose from historical criticism as a method of studying the world behind the text without the same modernist presuppositions. Literary criticism is a method that looks at the flow of the text, very much influenced by literary criticism of other types of literature. One example of literary criticism is narrative criticism that focuses on the elements of the story such as characters, plot, setting, introduction, climax and resolution, interpolation, etc. This type of criticism is particularly helpful for narratives such as the gospels. Finally, reader-response criticism includes feminist and womanist criticism, and postcolonial criticism. This is the most recent form of biblical studies. This includes reconstruction and resisting readings. For example, a feminist critic may read the text about the woman at the well, one which the woman is supposedly a prostitute and realize that the text does not say this at all. She will reconstruct the text by bringing out the fact that she was not necessarily the sinning but the “sinned against.” She may resist a negative passage such as the narrative of the concubine who was violently gang-raped and then brutally murdered.
These approaches to biblical studies I believe are valuable for us as Adventists to acknowledge and perhaps utilize. We should at least be aware of the conversations going on in biblical studies and learn from the different approaches out there.
Comment @ Bigogo Enoch:
I appreciated you bringing up the issue of cultural presuppositions and their role in biblical interpretation. I have been thinking on this issue as well. I wonder if any one of us can every shed our cultural biases or if they are just a part of who we are? Maybe the Bible can change certain cultural biases such as hate towards certain people turned to love and care for all. But I wonder if we can ever truly be free from our cultural presuppositions. Perhaps all we can do is acknowledge that they exist and try to challenge them through interacting with the larger community of faith and learning what they see from the same texts we read and how these readings challenge our cultural presuppositions
Renee Sims Responding to Shiphrah Fepulea'i 11/12 posting re: The Natural and The Spiritual . I really appreciated your thought Shiphrah. It is so important to fully understand how deeply the new age movement have worked it's way into our culture. As a nurse it was difficult for me to read the comment the presenter made because I have cared for many stroke patient who did not revel in the thought that they would be able to live in another existence . That is foolishness. God created our body to be dependent on each part . Yes the left hemisphere controls the right and visa versa but one still struggles tremendously when the both part are not working in unity.
It is the same with the Natural and the Spiritual . When we are in Christ they are intermingled ( in my opinion). Our Christian experience effects every facet of our lives . Thanks for sharing .
Renee D. Sims ,Response #2
Responding to Alexis' post 11/30 on the class discussion for today .
I too have been challenged by this class in regards to my interaction with the Bible . I so agree with your statement about just taking the word and a blank piece of paper and allowing the text to speak. Too many times we (as you stated) have others opinions/ thought regarding a text in our minds and the presupposition superimposes itself onto the text . This should not be . I'll be doing as you Alexis, finding my blank sheet, pencil and the word. Speak Jesus .
Thanks for sharing .
Branden Stoltz Last Comment for November
The issues discussed and read for this class have done wonders for my faith and has developed my understanding and reading of the Bible. First, I understand that I must be much more concise in my words when articulating my thoughts, which is a skill I realize I lack but still need to practice and develop. I now see that it is essential that I am eventually able to say what I think clearly for the benefit of others and of my own learning. Part of this skill is to read the Bible more closely, because I now realize how much we can easily read into the text. Since we all have our presuppositions, we must acknowledge them and articulate them so we are not in the end fooling ourselves into a false understanding of Scripture and faith. The most incredible and thrilling thing i have seen through this class has been the complete integrity of the Bible and of Ellen White, of Scripture and of nature, and of God's revelations of Himself. The Bible does not need help to explain itself, but rather it is us who need help to more closely search out the already intricate truth laid out inside of its pages. God is amazing and patient and generous to us, His creatures, for us to know Him.
Renee Sims
November review #1-The Cosmic Christ Chapter 7 - Are EGW writings Christ- Centered?
The author does a good job of setting forth the social nature of the Godhead within Scripture and through the eyes of EGW. From this chapter it is clear that Ellen White's focus was always Christocentric .She was ever turning her reader/ hearer to Christ .
In the latter portion of the chapter Mrs. Whites views own Christ humanity.Divinity were very insightful.On pg93 it states "...every church member should feel and interest in all that concerns the human brotherhood as well as the brotherhood in Christ. Why? It is because Christ has so identified with all humanity that we should be just as concerned for those outside the faith as within. It should be our goal to make sure that our churches have healthy social interaction within and outside our doors.
Renee D.Sims .
Responding to Branden's last post for November.
Amen:)
I too struggle with clarity of speech but it is so important so that as you stated"it is essential that I am eventually able to say what I think clearly for the benefit of others and of my own learning."
Thanks for sharing .
Renee D.Sims
November reflection #2 Understanding Scripture . Chapter 15 Hermeneutics and Culture by Dr.Lael Caesar.
I must be honest and state that this was the first chapter that I read in this book ..lol. I was interested in what Dr. Caesar had to say on this topic. When looking at Black Theology I must say that I have always felt that the journey , experiences and circumstance of people of African decent closely resembles that of the Jewish people during their time in Egypt. The cry of the old slave and those during the civil rights movement was for justice from the God who delivered Moses and Daniel. If he could do it for them , why not us? Is this desire wrong in and of itself.
I was also intrigued with Ng'weshemi's view on Christian Conversion . Caesar states that Ng'weshemi believes that Black Liberation theology is a "natural and logical reaction against this dehumanizing of the African humanity through Christian conversion". I personally believe that it is not Christianity which dehumanizes the evangelized but the evangelist. When one group feels that their way is the right way and is not willing to minister in context , then we should expect these issues ( alternate theologies) to arise. God made mankind unique and our relationship to Him culturally can be just as diverse as long as we remain true to biblical truth . As long as people are( and continue to be ) subjugated by the hand of religion this tension will continue.
I agree with Dr. Caesar's closing statement " Disoriented humanity must recover the indispensable truth of its origin at the hand of a loving Creator God . Only when viewed from this perspective can Christ's salvation appear to in its true majesty. To reach these goals requires the firmest adherence to the principle of sola scripture" . There is much work still for the Adventist church and the global body of Christ to do...
Understanding Scripture, chap. 6: Assign 5
Many Christians read the Bible and yet are ignorant of the process of transmission that allowed us have them for reading and study. This chapter deals with that process associated in academic circles as canonicity. The canon of Scripture refer to the body of texts that have been measured and found worthy of inclusion into the in a collection of texts associated with the Scripture. This chapter explores the origin and acceptance of the canon. He concludes that although council’s, such as the one in Jamnia, in which rabbis discussed the canonicity of Old Testament books; and early Christian Church Fathers adhered to books they deemed to be more trustworthy, the role of the Church in the process of canonicity was merely to confirm and ratify books already in use. The canon was based on both the OT/Jewish and NT/Christian communities’ sense of inspiration. The writings that proved to be inspired were included. This is important to note. The process that led to arrangement of the canon was motivated by an interest in a “Thus saith the Lord.”
Understanding Scripture, chap. 7, Assign 6
The process of coming to a clear understanding Scripture is difficult. This chapter gives tips to guide in the process of understanding God’s Word. The author explains the historical-biblical method which looks carefully at the Bible but assumes its claims are correct. This stands in contrast to the historical-critical method which is founded on some other basic assumptions. Interpretation presents several challenges in a contemporary world. We are separated by context, language and presuppositions from characters and the audience in the Bible. For that reason it is necessary for us follow a set of steps to bring us up to pace with the mind of the Bible writers and the meaning they intend to convey. This process is called exegesis. It brings us in touch with the biblical time. Biblical interpretation is a spiritual process and by necessity requires a spiritual attitude. We start with PRAYER. READING AND accurate TRANSLATION naturally follow. From there context and careful textual ANALYSIS should produce the THEOLOGICAL idea. APPLICATION is probably the most essential part of the process because the interpreter is forced to see how ancient truths work in today’s world. The use of RESOURCES and TIME in the text only help in the formation of better conclusions about the text.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Appendix B Part I
Angel M. Rodriguez begins his analysis of this topic by suggesting foundational principles on which to base ones exegetical analysis of the biblical text. Along with these basic principles Rodriguez identifies what he refers to as nature, authority, and purpose for being the basis for the Adventist high view of the bible and its message. With this as his spring board he argues persuasively for a clear hermeneutic that is biblically based and logically sound. He then moves to a brief review of his subject by commenting on the use of the Historical-Critical method of interpretation by Adventist Scholars. He divides their use into two categories of theoretical and practical analysis, which he discerns as being the basic crux of the matter. That is that one cannot properly separate his theoretical presuppositions from his practical methodology. He questions the plausibility or feasibility for that matter of even proposing such as theory. From his perspective theory and practice are one and the same and as such must be founded on common ground in order for it to remain both logical and consistent. From there he offers a case study on what he considers to be foundational areas of Adventist Theology: Creation, Law and Prophecy. He demonstrates very convincingly how in each one of these areas of Adventist interpretation that an Historical-Critical Method in its modified form still fails to remain faithful to the biblical text in its original form and meaning. Such a departure he suggests would not benefit the church as it takes us away from our purpose and identity in proclaiming the last message of salvation and judgment to the world through the proclamation of the three angel’s message. I agree with the author in many of his convictions about the present modified use of the Historical-Critical Method, however I was not convinced that the author himself offered a more positive solution to the problems that arise from ignoring the Historical-Critical Method altogether, howbeit this does not seems to be his primary objective in this essay.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Appendix B Part II
Nevertheless a more thorough evaluation should be done in order to better understand the Historical-Critical Method and its implications for proper biblical interpretation, specifically proper principles of correlation and analogy need to be properly identified in order to be able to offer a more biblically based method that is both sound and faithful to the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the bible. Such an approach might attempt to better understand how biblical authors understood these issues within a contemporary and prophetic context and seek to apply those to our modern day issues and the contemporary challenges of biblical interpretation. I would like to make two brief suggestions for these challenges. First, as it relates to the principal of analogy (postulates that the laws of nature operating in biblical times were the same one we have today) it my be beneficial to reconsider the hypothesis that views the laws of nature as remaining constant over time and to reconsider the possibility that the laws of nature may constantly be changing as a result of our world evolving over time, by this I am not suggesting some kind of dramatic or radical change in the laws of nature but the possibility of a gradual change and evolving of natural law as a result of the process of change over time, I think their may be some possible support for this position both in scripture and in nature, but further study would need to be done for further consideration of the this proposition.
Comment on Understanding Scripture and Adventist Approach Appendix B Part III
Second, as it relates to the principle of correlation (postulates that the flow of history is the result of a cause and effect continuum), I would suggest we that we consider the possibility of the future as well as the past, since this is what we discover in the biblical worldview. Clearly this demonstrates that their was both a backward observation of the past as well a forward looking anticipation of the future, both of which helped to establish their understanding of ultimate reality. They did not limit their understanding of inquiry into only those things which they could observe from their past, but rather they sought an answer through the prophetic oracles of dreams and visions about the nature of reality both past, present and future. This view represents a challenge in the theory of cause and effect, and demonstrates that all causes are simply the effect of God the First Cause, which continues to cause all effects according to His divine and sovereign will. This perspective enabled them to recognize that God could do something in both the present and the future that had never been seen or done before. This open view of the cosmos enabled the biblical characters to believe by faith the living word of God, which sustained the creation and promised to recreate the cosmos and restore man to his rightful place in God’s universe. This view of reality clearly requires a different way of thinking than the present modern view of scientific observation.
Response, Assign 3
Response @ Branden Stoltz Last Comment for November
I agree with you wholeheartedly. This class has caused me to be more careful with my exegesis. I feel as though the lectures and discussions have also encouraged me to be clear and honest about my thoughts. I feel comfortable saying, ‘This is how I look at this Scripture.’ This class has also taught me to scrutinize my presuppositions which can either positively or negatively influence interpretation. It is clear to me that God participates in a very humble act when He condenses the great revelation of Himself into human language for out salvation. Indeed, God is amazing!
Response to Alexis
Hey Alexis, I really enjoyed your summation of the recent class discussion concerning biblical interpretation. I too found the principles that were presented in class to be extremely helpful in my interpretation of a biblical text. In times past I used to wonder why there seemed to be so much contradiction and confusion about the bible, but its now apparent that when it comes to the interpretation of the bible there's way more opinions than answers. While we all have to wrestle with the meaning of the text, I do think some universal principles of interpretation can help us to have a more reliable approach to biblical interpretation. Unfortunately, I have found that when it comes to interpretation everyman seems to be an island unto himself, I really think there needs to be a reevaluation of such thinking and an honest attempt to create a more biblically based hermeneutic for the Christian Community (particularly Seventh-day Adventist). I personally appreciate the 5 principles which you offered in your comment and think they are a good starting point for any person desiring to engage the biblical text.
Thanks,
Assignment no3
Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor
Presumption in the interpretation of scriptures by Frank Hassel.
When I was reading this chapter I discovered the following insights:
The hermeneutical challenges- interpreters of the bible can not divest themselves from their own past experiences, resident ides and pre conceived notions and opinions. A God centered theology demands a God centered methodology. Any pre-understanding such as evolution, that questions denies the supernatural dimensions clearly defines in the scripture is alien to the bible and will not come to grips with the subject matter of God’s word.
Humans are created to understand, hence they are accountable for their creator, but sin has marred and distorted the image of God in man, it has not come completely destroyed it. Sin is the desire to cross the boundaries of creature hood relationship in attempt to become like God, a rapture of the essential creator-creature relationship and a desire to live an independent, ego-centric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature, and our reasoning powers and capability of understanding.
Effects of sin on interpretation:
Because of sin our minds have become corrupted and thereby closed to God’s truth
Pride –our pride causes us to be spiritual blind, unable to recognize God’s revelation to us
Self-deception- sin has affected all our human existence, including thinking and desiring the proper understanding of God’s written word 2timothy 4:3-4
Disobedience –the unwillingness to follow God’s revealed will, affects our ability to understand scripture correctly.
Hermeneutical principles
Scripture interprets scriptures-solar scriptura-Isaiah 8:20
Tota scriptura john 5:39-context of the scripture passage, the clarity of the scripture, the clarity of the scripture and of the Bible translations, the clarity of the scripture and the difficult passages 2peter3:16
Prima scriptura
The relationship between Christ and the scripture:
The living and the speaking God of the scripture has chosen to reveal Him through the word. It seems one has to believe scripture before one can believe the Christ of scripture. The word incarnate can not be separated from the word in scripture (Holy Scripture)
All scripture pointed to Him (like 24:25-27), all scripture testifies of Him 9JOHN 5; 39) THUS SOLAR SCRIPTURA WITHOUT CHRST IS EMPTY1!!
Assignment no3
Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor
Presumption in the interpretation of scriptures by Frank Hassel.
When I was reading this chapter I discovered the following insights:
The hermeneutical challenges- interpreters of the bible can not divest themselves from their own past experiences, resident ides and pre conceived notions and opinions. A God centered theology demands a God centered methodology. Any pre-understanding such as evolution, that questions denies the supernatural dimensions clearly defines in the scripture is alien to the bible and will not come to grips with the subject matter of God’s word.
Humans are created to understand, hence they are accountable for their creator, but sin has marred and distorted the image of God in man, it has not come completely destroyed it. Sin is the desire to cross the boundaries of creature hood relationship in attempt to become like God, a rapture of the essential creator-creature relationship and a desire to live an independent, ego-centric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature, and our reasoning powers and capability of understanding.
Effects of sin on interpretation:
Because of sin our minds have become corrupted and thereby closed to God’s truth
Pride –our pride causes us to be spiritual blind, unable to recognize God’s revelation to us
Self-deception- sin has affected all our human existence, including thinking and desiring the proper understanding of God’s written word 2timothy 4:3-4
Disobedience –the unwillingness to follow God’s revealed will, affects our ability to understand scripture correctly.
Hermeneutical principles
Scripture interprets scriptures-solar scriptura-Isaiah 8:20
Tota scriptura john 5:39-context of the scripture passage, the clarity of the scripture, the clarity of the scripture and of the Bible translations, the clarity of the scripture and the difficult passages 2peter3:16
Prima scriptura
The relationship between Christ and the scripture:
The living and the speaking God of the scripture has chosen to reveal Him through the word. It seems one has to believe scripture before one can believe the Christ of scripture. The word incarnate can not be separated from the word in scripture (Holy Scripture)
All scripture pointed to Him (like 24:25-27), all scripture testifies of Him 9JOHN 5; 39) THUS SOLAR SCRIPTURA WITHOUT CHRST IS EMPTY1!!
Assignment no3
Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor
Presumption in the interpretation of scriptures by Frank Hassel.
When I was reading this chapter I discovered the following insights:
The hermeneutical challenges- interpreters of the bible can not divest themselves from their own past experiences, resident ides and pre conceived notions and opinions. A God centered theology demands a God centered methodology. Any pre-understanding such as evolution, that questions denies the supernatural dimensions clearly defines in the scripture is alien to the bible and will not come to grips with the subject matter of God’s word.
Humans are created to understand, hence they are accountable for their creator, but sin has marred and distorted the image of God in man, it has not come completely destroyed it. Sin is the desire to cross the boundaries of creature hood relationship in attempt to become like God, a rapture of the essential creator-creature relationship and a desire to live an independent, ego-centric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature, and our reasoning powers and capability of understanding.
Effects of sin on interpretation:
Because of sin our minds have become corrupted and thereby closed to God’s truth
Pride –our pride causes us to be spiritual blind, unable to recognize God’s revelation to us
Self-deception- sin has affected all our human existence, including thinking and desiring the proper understanding of God’s written word 2timothy 4:3-4
Disobedience –the unwillingness to follow God’s revealed will, affects our ability to understand scripture correctly.
Hermeneutical principles
Scripture interprets scriptures-solar scriptura-Isaiah 8:20
Tota scriptura john 5:39-context of the scripture passage, the clarity of the scripture, the clarity of the scripture and of the Bible translations, the clarity of the scripture and the difficult passages 2peter3:16
Prima scriptura
The relationship between Christ and the scripture:
The living and the speaking God of the scripture has chosen to reveal Him through the word. It seems one has to believe scripture before one can believe the Christ of scripture. The word incarnate can not be separated from the word in scripture (Holy Scripture)
All scripture pointed to Him (like 24:25-27), all scripture testifies of Him 9JOHN 5; 39) THUS SOLAR SCRIPTURA WITHOUT CHRST IS EMPTY1!!
Assignment no 4
Understanding the scriptures, an Adventist approach by George W.Reid, editor
Revelation and inspiration- In reading this chapter I discovered the following truths:
The biblical authors are considered to be to be used by God to write the scriptures.2timothy3:15-17; 2peter20, 21
God inspired them and the wrote in the human language. He imbued the prophet’s minds with thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment of their task also watched over them in their attempt to express infinite ideas and embody them in infinite vihecles’of human language. The writers of the bible were God’s pen men not His pen (1sm21). The divine guidance or moving acted directly on human agency in the R-I Process. this divine guiding or moving of human agencies followed the various ways of divine providence working within the flux of historical events, not as God’s timeless,absolute,sovereign power working by way of eternal decrees and overruling the freedom of biblical writers.
God guided and moving the reception of the information of ideas in the biblical writers by means of historical process of divine cognitive revelation given in a diversity of patterns .the divine guidance and moving of human agencies embraced multiple patterns of divine operations, both in the revelation and inspirations process Heb.1:1. The whole scripture was both revealed and inspired. In this sense the biblical model R-I is plenary, for it embraces the entirety of the scripture. The spirit’s guidance or moving harnessed the freedom and literacy of human agencies in their historical and scriptural development. Because guidance of the Holy Spirit respected human modes of thinking and writing, we should not expect of find in scripture the absolute perfection that belong s to the inner life of trinity. Although divine guidance and moving operated on human agencies through them it reached the words of the scriptures. In this sense the biblical model of R-I is verbal.
Divine guidance in the process of writing did not assure absolute divine perfection, but in their entirety the scriptures truthfully and trustworthy represent God’s teachings, will and works. In short, God, not the human writers, is the author of scripture in the sense that He is the source of content, action and the interpretation.
Assignment no5
Understanding the scripture, an Adventist approach, by George W.Reid, editor
The authority of the scripture: After reading this chapter is discovered the following truths:
The scripture is God’s written word. It is God’s oracles. The Old Testament books consist of the three sections, the laws, prophets and the writing... Jesus used the word “it is written” to show unquestionable authority mathew4:4; 7’10. For Him scripture was the word of God that can not be broken John 10:28. Jesus Himself divine authority math 28:28. Because the scriptures came to us as the oracles of God, they speak with divine authority. Because He is the author and creator, God’s authority stands supreme over all His creatures and all creature authority is subordinated to the authority of the creator.
God’s authority is eternal and supreme Isaiah 40:25-28. God’s authority is primarily based on divine love and defined by truth so the scripture speak to us with the same authority... The union of divine, and human manifests in Christ’s, exists also in the Bible. The truths revealed are all given by inspiration of God yet they are expressed in the words of men and adopted to human need……5T747
Assignment no 6
Understanding the scripture, an Adventist approach, by George W.Reid, Editor
The text and the canon of the scripture- after reading this chapter I discovered the following truths:
The canon means a reed, measured rod, or even curtain rod, which I turn, is connected to Hebrew word qanesh.1Kings 14:15.
A canon is a body of texts that has been measured and found worth of inclusion in a collection of texts with a binding authority for religious community. It must be connected to the concept of scripture as well as inspiration 2Tim3:16. The criteria for the process of canonization are 1.prophetitic origin 2.authorship-the author have to be known 3.in the new testament apostolicity 4.antiquity 56.orthordox-congruence with what has already been revealed. 6. Inspiration
Assignment #5
Reflecting on the last chapter of Hanna’s book.
In this chapter, Hanna brings together some of Ellen White’s statements that are supportive of much of what he has been saying the book, including the harmony between nature and scripture, the way that nature reveals God, and that nature is permeated with the law of God.
Because of my psychology background, I found this quotation especially interesting, “the brain nerves... are the medium through which heaven communicates with man” (Ed 209). I remember in my psychology classes how they talked about the issue between soul and mind, assuming that religious people made a distinction between the two, and that modern neural-psychology proved how wrong that view was.
Being Adventist, I never really believed in that distinction in the first place. That is just one of the reasons I am so grateful for our theology. But it is something else to read to quote in which Ellen White makes that statement directly about the neurons in the brain even making it more than 100 years ago. Think of the state of religion and science at the time. She truly was amazing.
In this area at least, there doesn’t need to be a conflict between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible that the maker of the brain communicates with the person with that brain.
But this quote brings me to another question, is this referring to the process of inspiration as in what the bible writers experienced? Or is it referring to more to common Christian experience? In the context, it appears to be referring to common Christian experience. But maybe he really does inspire you and I as we do our devotions in the same exact way he inspired the Psalmists and even the prophets.
november response
@ Deirdre,
Your comments about the different types of criticism and their roles were right on. Loved every word. Thanks.
October Assignment #3
Chapter 2 Faith, reason, and the Holy Spirit Hermeneutics
As I read the chapter written by our very own professor Dr. Baldwin I learned a thing or two about the process of hermeneutics. I have a tendency and I guess you may say a presumption to put faith easily ahead of reason without even thinking about the two subjects. After reading the chapter on “Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics” I have more of a, no pun intended, reason to put faith ahead of reason. I cannot stay right at just the notion of faith over reason either. There is more a spiritual power in faith that is at hand in the role of hermeneutics. Baldwin gave a good reason that reason alone is not the answer. We live in a fallen world where there are positive aids and negative aids. We may say that angels help us, but there are both good angels and bad angels (called demons) that attribute to our decision process. Then there is a mighty Helper namely the Holy Spirit that helps with the hermeneutics of the scripture. We are fallen beings ourselves and as Dr. Baldwin pointed out we have a “veiled mind.” The Holy Spirit then helps us with the interpretation of the spiritual things we need to discern. IN all this discussion we still cannot put away reason altogether. Reason is still valuable in the response process. The reasoning ensures the answer is not blindly followed, but instead has power of choice and freedom in the decision made as one’s own.
Chapter 3 Assignment #4
I have heard a great share of this class talk about the presuppositions that one has when they enter into the hermeneutics of Scripture. I have to be honest that I have not thought of my presuppositions as much as this class has thought of people using. The presupposition I may have is that I may not think I have pre-understanding concepts. I remember once when I was in a philosophy class at Union College the teacher told me that since I as Catholic that I would have Catholic Seventh-day Adventist thoughts. That every time I dealt with matters in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination I would have Catholic presuppositions. The chapter here talks about how these are inseparable from our interpretations. This is a scary thought for me seeing that my pre-understandings are in contrast for the most part in my choice as to be a Seventh-day Adventist. The writer of this chapter, Dr. Hasel, did give me a glimmer of hope; the role of the Holy Spirit in the acknowledging my presuppositions and modifying and reshaping of these pre-understandings. The chapter also put together a contrast of the hermeneutical effects of sin and how we need necessary hermeneutical attitudes in interpreting the Scripture. These are very helpful to understand where the presuppositions come from and how to deal with them through the interpretation of the Scripture.
October response to Denilson Reis said...
On the Chapter VII
That was a very interesting take on the “burning heart.” I too believe the Holy Spirit has the major role in this area. The person also has a role as a response to the interpreter. Another variable in the experience may be the pre-experiences of an individual. The “burning heart” is a difficult rating device. A person that keeps to himself/herself may not show a “burning heart” moment intensely. The blog was good. I would like to know more about the “burning heart” experience in different situations.
November Assignment #5
Chapter 14 “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic” by Jon K. Paulien
There is a great deal of emphasis on the apocalyptic views in the Seventh-day Adventist church. The church was founded on these principles of biblical apocalyptic interpretations. The four reasons that were introduced in the beginning of this chapter were profound to me. The urgency factor was clearly behind the focus of this principle to be presented to the world. The world has changed in the times and reactions since the start of this denomination. We are still in a very great need for the correct understanding of biblical apocalypse. The people have changed and so have the approaches to the hermeneutics of biblical apocalyptic. The writer of this chapter went into a great depth to help the reader understand the necessity of the correct understanding of the biblical apocalyptic. There were many tools and approaches that were helpful to the hermeneutical process of the apocalypse. The first and the main is the deciphering the type of prophecy that is dealt with. There are many types of prophecies. The main difference of the two types is the response to the prophecy. The general prophecy is a conditional prophecy. The prophecy is based on the conditional response of the individuals affected by the prophecy. On the other hand the apocalyptic prophecy results in an unconditional in its nature. The rest of the chapter gives good tools on the interpreting process of the prophecy. The best rule I saw was the use of prayer and distrusting self. These were very good aids in helping one come to a correct understanding in their hermeneutics of biblical apocalyptic.
November 2 Assignment #6
Chapter 17 “Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics” by Gerhard Pfandl
This chapter gave some great insights to the use of Ellen G. White. The writer suggests we use the same hermeneutics that we use on the Bible on her writings. I think this is a good idea. There is much misinterpretations that may be avoided by the use of this suggestion. I like the use of the context of Ellen White’s writings. The time of her writings definitely have an impact on the hermeneutics of the writing. The application to one time period may be drastic to another time period. The example of the horse was very plain. I would not expect that everyone should teach their daughter to ride a horse to be fairly equipped to make it in a city of the size of Los Angeles, California. The contexts of her writings are great tools to avoid misguided uses of her writings. The limitations in the use of her writings are also very essential in the hermeneutics of Ellen White’s writings and the Bible for that fact. The two writings were never to be the basis for history as the writer pointed out. There are historical errors in the writings of Ellen White and the Bible. The writers of the Bible in various parts did not correctly write the history of the event. The Bible is in no way less of truth from this fact. The Bible still has great gems for salvation which is the intention of the Bible, not history. The same may be said of Ellen White’s writings. We would be best suited to learn the tools of hermeneutics to understand correctly the light from Ellen White.
November response
Response to Shiphrah Fepulea'i said...
Shiphrah the blog you wrote on ethics was inspiring. I have to admit that the point of view that was clarified would help me enjoy ethics more. I have had a dislike for ethics once I took the class on ethics at Union College. The fact that ethics appears to be self-orientated in human sense may be the problem I have with ethics. I have yet to take an ethics class here at Andrews. In all honesty I am also terrified at the eventual truth that I will have to take a class in ethics to graduate. I am comforted by the suggested idea of ethics as Christ-centered. Have you taken an ethics class yet? Which one do you suggest I try or stay away from?
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
06 December 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #5:
MEET ‘EM WHERE THEY’RE AT
In the book, “Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach” edited by George W. Reid, there is a chapter entitled, “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic” by Jon K. Paulien. In this chapter talks about how when it comes to interpreting the Bible, we need to keep in mind that God meets us where we are. “Scripture was given in the time, place, language, and cultures of specific human beings” (page 250). What if we followed God’s method of communication? What if we too were to meet people where they were? We need to talk in their language, and that goes beyond just simply English. Language is composed of a mentality. Everyone has their own culture, therefore they think in their own way. When we talk about God and the Bible, sometimes we need to use analogies that have to do with things that they can relate to. You know, the best way to be able to relate to certain types of people is to spend time with them. When we mingle with people in normal everyday settings, we can start to know what kind of mindset they have. It’s when we understand the way a person thinks can we truly communicate effectively.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
GSEM510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
06 December 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #6:
KEEP IT SIMPLE
In the book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, by Martin Frederick Hanna there is a chapter called, “Are Ellen White’s Writing’s Relevant to the cosmos?” This chapter says that Ellen White states that “the Bible is ‘perfect in its simplicity’ while it ‘does not answer [correspond completely] to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of though” (page 117). Not everything is clear in the Bible, because the Bible was written by men, and those of us who are reading it are men (or women). However, the Bible is still “perfect in its simplicity”. I think that’s a good note to end the semester. We’ve discussed a lot of questions about Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics in class and on this website. Not everything is clear, but the Bible is still “perfect in its simplicity”. Sometimes we get so caught up in the questions and over analyze things, sometimes we get ourselves confused, and sometimes we start to feel as though all this is too complicated. But we need to be able to relax and know that although the Bible is deep, it’s still simple. Let’s not over complicate things. Let’s keep it simple.
Thanks Harry for your comment, after I told you to respond to one of my blogs. Still Apriechiated
Richard, thanks for responding to one of my blogs. I was just saying that a passage can have multiple applications.
Thanks Nyarige for commenting on my post.
Well, Christ possessed divinity completely. He also possessed humanity completely. He just didn't let his divinity unleash itself. I guess you can say that His divinty was clothed with humanity. They are both 100%. Like you Samuel, your 100% human. You are also 100% a student. You can be 100% in two different things. God is both 100% God and 100% man.
Jesus definetly knew that He was divine. But He didn't use His divinity at all when it came to temptation or even miracles. He was just connected with His Father, like we can be. (John 5:30; 14:10) The only time He used His divinity was to forgive sins.
Response to Kosly's assignment 1.
Hey Kosly (I knew your name was spelled with a K). You know you posted this assignment up 3 times? Hanna isn't going to count it more than once.
I like the fact that you started off and ended with an illustration. It made it interesting. Keep doing that.
I agree with you. We need to let our interpretation of nature be guided by the scripture. That is our consisten guide post.
The last analogy about going by the instruments and not by what we see is true also. We cannot trust our own understanding (Prov 3:5-6).
p.s. So... what movie did you see?
Assignment 3
In thinking and reflecting on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the word through which God communicates and accomplishes his will hope to understand the expression and accomplishments of God through Jesus as the revelation of God.Christ is The Creative Word in creation
Physically it is the word we live in and live by, which is his word to us of his sovereignty, power, wisdom, care, love.
Key text: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3
1. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6
2. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9
a. Whatever he said that that very word contain within itself the very thing he said.
3. …The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. Psalm 33:5
4. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3
5. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist.
6. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19:1-4
7. For since the creation of the world His invisible attribute are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are with are without excuse. Romans 1:20
8. Bring my sons from afar, And by daughters from the ends of the earth – everyone who is called by my name, Whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him and yes I have made Him. Isaiah 43:6, 7
9. Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it… Isaiah 42:5
10. 24 rThe God who made the world and everything in it, being sLord of heaven and earth, tdoes not live in temples made by man,2 25 nor is he served by human hands, uas though he needed anything, since he himself vgives to all mankind wlife and breath and everything. 26 And xhe made from one man every nation of mankind to live yon all the face of the earth, zhaving determined allotted periods and athe boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 bthat they should seek God, in the hope that cthey might feel their way toward him and find him. dYet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for e“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being… Acts 17:24-28
Key Point: The world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Jesus Christ) and the physical spoken words… express or speak…Christ.
Assignment 3
In thinking and reflecting on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the word through which God communicates and accomplishes his will. Hope to trace revelation of God through His Word Jesus Christ.The bible teaches that God accomplishes everything through his Living Word Jesus Christ. Firstly the bible portrays Christ as Creative Word in creation
Physically that creation is God's spoken word which we live in and live by, which reveals God's sovereignty, power, wisdom, care, love.
Key text: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3
1. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6
2. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9
a. Whatever he said that very word contain within itself the very thing he said.
4. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3
5. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist.
6. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19:1-4
7. For since the creation of the world His invisible attribute are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are with are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Acts The God who made the world and everything in it, being sLord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,2 25 nor is he served by human hands, uas though he needed anything, since he himself vgives to all mankind wlife and breath and everything. 26 And xhe made from one man every nation of mankind to live yon all the face of the earth, zhaving determined allotted periods and athe boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 bthat they should seek God, in the hope that cthey might feel their way toward him and find him. dYet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for e“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being… Acts 17:24-28
Key Point: The world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Jesus Christ) and the physical spoken words… express or speak…Christ.
Assignment 3
In thinking and reflecting on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the word through which God communicates and accomplishes his will. Hope to trace revelation of God through His Word Jesus Christ.The bible teaches that God accomplishes everything through his Living Word Jesus Christ. Firstly the bible portrays Christ as Creative Word in creation
Physically that creation is God's spoken word which we live in and live by, which reveals God's sovereignty, power, wisdom, care, love.
Key text: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3
1. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalm 33:6
2. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9
a. Whatever he said that very word contain within itself the very thing he said.
4. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3
5. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist.
6. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19:1-4
7. For since the creation of the world His invisible attribute are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are with are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Key Point: The world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Jesus Christ) and the physical spoken words… express or speak…Christ.
Assignment 4
In scripture, Christ not only reveals God as the creative word in creation.
Secondly,Christ is The written Word in inspiration.
The written word reveals Christ the living word Jesus Christ our all and all.
1. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21
2. …the prophets….the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10
3. You study the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life and they are they that testify of me. John 5:39
Christ is The Incarnated Word in ultimate revelation and salvation
Factually the word through by whose life, death, resurrection he accomplish our salvation and through who he gives us full revelation of his love.
1. And the Word became flesh and dwell among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
2. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18
3. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past, to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom he made the worlds; who being the beightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of His power. Hebrews 1:1-3
Assignment 5
Thirdly, Christ is The proclaimed Word in proclamation and the regenerating word in conversion
1. Having been born again, not of incorruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever. 1 Peter 1:22-23
2. Now this is the word that was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:24-25
3. To them it was revealed, that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven… 1 Peter 1:12
Evangelistically the word through which the Spirit proclaims the Living Word to be received into the heart as the light and life of man.
The proclaimed word is the gospel preached. The Word of the Lord is the gospel message about Jesus Christ. This Living Word can regenerate men and women.
Christ is the The last Word in consummation
Climatically in Revelation,Christ is the last word by which God accomplishes eternal judgment, final redemption and global re-creation.
1. Now I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And he who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of Lord. Revelation 19:11, 13
2. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8
3. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8
Assignment 6
Scripture Reveals Christ
Text: Luke 24:44, 45
All of scripture reveals Jesus…if we do not see him our eyes have not been opened.
1. The writings of Moses, and all the prophets points to Jesus. We can study the scripture and be blind to the person it points us to.
2. We will not see Christ in the bible until he opens our eyes to recognize that everything in scripture is about Him. Only Christ can reveal Himself to us in the Scriptures and open our eyes that we might know Him.
Text: John 1:18 and 1 John 1:1,
God’s Word (Jesus) is made flesh in the bible for us to hear, see, look upon and handle with our hands so that we can behold the glory of Christ in the scriptures as our means of knowing God personally.
1. In the scripture Christ is the Word made flesh, he speak to us in a language we can understand. God only speaks to us in his Word Jesus Christ who is reveal in his word the bible.
a. God speaks – through His Word – revealed in the bible – inspired by the Spirit
2. God communicates the knowledge of Himself to us through his Word Jesus as revealed in scriptures. God communicates his life to us through his Word Jesus as revealed in scripture.
Assignment 7
Goal of Hermeneutics: Christ-centered Transformation
Text: John 5:39
The bible reveals Jesus – life is in him not the scripture.
1. The written word points us to Jesus so that he can give us eternal life
a. Bible study that does not lead us to see Jesus means we came to an open book with a close heart. The book can be open without our hearts been opened. Come to the bible in humility with an open heart.
b. Bible study that lead us to see Jesus means we came with an open heart to a closed book
c. The bible does not give us eternal life it points to Christ as eternal life. We can have bible truths and be separated from The Truth that those truths reveal. We can have the literature and be separated from the life it reveals.
2. Bible study is not an end in itself but the end goal of the written word is to transform us through the living word
a. The written word that does not lead to the living word simply gives us information and not transformation
b. The written word that does not lead to the living word is knowledge of book and not knowing of God
c. The written word that does not lead to the living word is seeing doctrines and not savoring a person
Assignment no 7
The cosmic of Christ of scripture by Dr. Martin Hanna
The authority of the scripture
It is true that the authority of the scripture comes only from God, because those who wrote the scripture they wrote what they were lead by the Holy spirit .they were moved by the Holy spirit although they wrote in human languages but that cant disqualify it from not having authority. In another word the word of God is both Divine and human. It gets its authority from divine part of it. thus Christ has defined His authority through scriptures. This is what makes the the scriptures to be authoritative
Assignment no 8
The cosmic Christ of the scripture by Dr. Martine Hanna
Daniel 12:4- Daniel talks of the increase in both secular and sacred knowledge. That in the last day’s knowledge will increase to both the unbelievers and to the believers (saints). This knowledge it is true that it will increases in both secular and sacred knowledge. We as saints we have to integrate faith and learning. We have to go to fro to increase the knowledge of the cosmic Christ of scripture. Our theology should go to and fro in scripture as well as to and fro among scripture, Christ, and cosmos. We should increase the knowledge of the word of God. We should such the scriptures diligently! (John 5:39-40)
Second we should go to and fro from scriptures to the cosmos (nature, which includes human nature) in order to increase the knowledge.
Assignment no 9
The cosmic Christ of scripture by Dr.Martin Hanna
As it is in the book of scripture to be both divine and humanity, Christ also is both divine and humanity! Studying both His divinity and His humanity will help us to identify the counterfeit Christ .Mathew 24:24. We we don’t study diligently so as to know the genuine Christ of scripture are easy to be confused. Christ is fully divine because He is creator. John 1:1-14; Colossians 2:9. He is also a fully human because He was born of woman Mathew8:20; Galatians4:4 He was fully human and yet remained sinless.
Assignment # 3
The concept of the condition of the heart and its role in hermeneutics is rather astounding. When one contemplates it, it seems rather that heart purity (genuine intentions and willingness to obey) is somewhat of a prerequisite for getting deeper insights with God (John 17:7, Matt 5:8, Jeremiah 29:13). There is popular saying that says "if I tell you, I'll have to kill you." I think there's a similar philosophy with God, although His motivation for repeating such a phrase would be obviously different from its popular usage. In a sense, to want to know the deep things of God, you have to be willing to die ("be killed"). Die in the sense of dying to your selfish aspirations and selfish intentions. It's the meek that will actually receive God as their daily teachers. The proud automatically will not receive His teachings, because His teachings makes most sense when He is at the center. So, my present journey is to learn how to surrender to God most effectively and intelligibly. Hermeneutics works best when the eye is single to God's glory. When they eye is on Christ, I believe the Sprit will be working the most effectively in our lives. We are all human, and the life of faith is a learning process. I hope to learn and mature more in that realm myself.
Trung Hoang
Assignment #3
Reading chapter 9 of Dr. Hanna’s book about “What Does the Bible Say?” has helped me to understand more about the relation of revelation in Scripture and the cosmos. On page 109, he writes, “We sometimes identify the spiritual mind with theology (the study of Scripture) and identify the natural mind with science (the study of the cosmos). Paul presents a different perspective. He does not separate the natural from the spiritual or dichotomize special revelation in Scripture and general revelation in the cosmos. The term “natural” and “spiritual” are used to distinguish false science from true science.”
This is where I see the Adventists can run into trouble. Anything is that study about the Scripture, or from literal Scripture, we think is “natural.” Even though we have not understood the wholistic view of the Scripture. Let’s take psychology as an example, we are so afraid of science because it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Another reason we might be reluctant is because people out there who understand it wrongly and not according to the principles of the Scripture. These reasons alone are not enough to conclude that psychology (study of the mind) is not an important subject to learn. Many people are conscious with the term psychology, we can call it whatever we want. The fact that God has created the brain for us to use, there are things that God wants to know more about it. However, the moment we find someone else out there who is doing it wrongly, we quickly disregard it. Could it be that’s a Satan’s trap? He’ll do whatever it takes for us to not understand about God’s creation.
Therefore, I believe that we ought to pay more attention to general revelation. Every time I understand more deeply about a theological thought from the Scripture is through practical encounters (general revelations). Jesus himself came and showed the people the marvelous magnificence of the nature and humans that humans have been neglected.
Trung Hoang
Assignment 4
Psalms is one of the Christians’ most favorite books in the Scripture and it is mine also. The reason is because they are personal experiences of God’s children. Though the events are different from today’s, however, the emotions are very much the same. One thing that the author points out that is helpful for me is that we should not read too much into one single word or line, but to interprete it as a whole. Much of the psalms were written in parallel. Another challenge we may face for the interpretation of Hebrew poetry is that the figurative language is more difficult to understand than prose. We should not read it too literally. I have to admit that the background to such imagery adds interest and to study and depth to the understanding of the psalms. The descriptive emotions in psalms seem to real to me even reading them over and over again. This shows the inspiration of God for His children. Besides the Gospels, the book of Psalms was the main book that drew me closer to God when I was converted. The amazing thing is that I discover more new emotions from the psalms as my emotions attach to the words. I just want to thank God for His ways of communicate with us. Reading the psalms is one of them.
Trung Hoang
Assignment 5
On page 60 in “Cosmic Christ,” there is a quote of Ellen White in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “We are not to praise the gospel, but [to] praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the gospel.” This is interesting because Jesus in the gospel of John was recorded to ask the Jews with similar question. The Jews thought that they understood the Scripture. The pharisees thought that they knew it all. They all thought they have interpreted the Scripture rightly and if they had kept all the laws in the Scripture [they thought] they would inherit eternal life. So in a sense the literal law had become their God instead of the God of the Scripture. Now, parallel to Adventistism, how many have idolized Ellen White. Instead of worship the God that Ellen White was commisioned to point to, many have worship that lesser light or the instrument. I thought this principle is important because any of us, at any time, in any area, can fall into temptation to worship the very own subject that points out the love of God, instead of God himself. Let’s take to health message for example. If we are not careful, we can be obsessed the details in the health principles and habits that ignores that giver of health in the first place.
Trung Hoang
Assignment 6
On pages 310 & 311 of “Understanding Scripture,” Reid suggests general guidelines of interpretation of Scripture. One of them is Guard Against Extreme Interpretations by Work Together With People of Experience. “Let one be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren…the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for “in the multitufe of counselors there is safety”” (5T 291, 293). Besides submitting to the [Adventist] brethren, should we also submit to other Christians as well. If we have the theology that says no individual holds all the truth, could it be the same in a broader definition. Could there be something else that Adventists have not known, but are known to others? I suggest not only we cherish our values, but also be open-minded and be willingly to study what others might have understood that makes more complete in our understanding.
Assignment # 4
In light of the concept of hermeneutics, an interesting concept was mentioned. "We have to interpret whatever God reveals to us." It's an amazing responsibility when one really considers the fact that when God speaks to us, we have the responsibility for its interpretation. Interpretation is truly crucial as our interpretations can shape our lives and how we perceive reality. Thus, God's help is crucially needed. It's also interesting how God chose to use types and parables in Scripture in order to communicate His teachings. Why would He do that? Why not just say things directly? The professor mentioned a point that perhaps a reason why types were used was because they had potential for multiple fulfillments. They were not always to be tied to a specific event/context only, although they might have had a specific, time fulfillment.
Hermeneutics indeed is a task that cannot be taken lightly. The “gold” hidden in the text are not just stumbled upon. It gives a new perspective on passages that seem difficult to understand at first glance. As discussed in class, sometimes these passages are signals indicating that great truths are waiting to be dug out. So many times what we get out of the text is proportional to our personal diligence, earnestness, and write employment of a faithful methodology.
Assignment # 6
Understanding Scripture – Chapter 16 “Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics”
Though I only read a majority of this chapter, I appreciated much of the insight. It dealt much with analyzing and interpreting the ethics mentioned in Scripture. There were several passages actually that he wrestled with that helped bring a bit of clarity on passages that I myself was interested in. He touched on the issue with Rahab, who is seemingly praised in the Bible, although she lied and practiced deception “for a good cause.” We must note that just because something good comes out of deception doesn’t validate deception. God would rather us do what’s right, even though death may be the outcome. We cannot allow the projected outcome of a certain decision be the chief determinant in rendering obedience.
He noted that although 1 Cor 10:11 mentions that the Scriptures were written for our benefit and instruction, it doesn’t mean that the Scripture endorses everything that it reports. For instance, just because David had many wives, yet was called “a man after God’s own heart”, doesn’t mean that a heart-devoted Christian is now permitted to have multiple wives. Rather, it was while he was living in conformity to God that he was called a man after God’s heart, not when he began to commit adultery. Thus, a certain level of chronological understanding can be crucial, as we understand in what time contexts were things stated. David was not always living in obedience with God at all times.
Response # 3 @ Alicia Johnston
That quote indeed is powerful, that God communicates with us through our brain nerves. It startling how much the brain is important in our communion with God. Much of the time we take for granted caring for the physical body, as if our spirituality is entirely unrelated to it. We should make great effort to develop mentally for God's glory!
Assignment # 5 (Already posted 6 above)
I remember from the Desire of Ages when Ellen White made a statement about inspiration. In the chapter dealing with the woman who washed Jesus’ feet, she notes that she was “inspired” to make such a gesture. It was an expression of her love and appreciation for Christ that brought her to make such a move, but it was also this that exited the selfish comment of Judas. However, as mentioned by Ellen White, after making such a lavish expression upon Christ before the others, she began to feel a bit embarrassed, afraid what others would think, and how here sister would censure her. She could not understand the full significance of what she did, she just obeyed the promptings of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But Mrs. White makes a crucial statement about inspiration; she says, “ Inspiration stoops to give no reason. An unseen presence, it speaks to mind and soul, and moves the heart to action. It is its own justification (Desire of Ages 560 Accessed online)
That brings to light an interesting element when understanding how inspiration works, and the effects it has on individuals. Sometimes we cannot explain why we feel inspired to do this particular good deed for God, or why we feel inspired to study this particular subject for research, or even a sermon. The Holy Spirit has a mind of His of His own. Now this statement does not sanction anything that we feel that we’re inspired to do, but when we feel the burden to express our love for God and others in a Christ -like way, or to study a certain passage for research or sermon, this can be a fruit of the power of inspiration.
Stephan Albers
Reflection 1
RIH
It's kinda makes me laugh in some ways when we know something but don't realize or act like we actually know it. For instance, I learned long ago that God revealed Himself not only through scripture, but also through nature. The apostle Paul is pretty clear about that in Romans 1 and I could see it in some ways myself. The thing was though that I never really took the time to figure out what that really meant, that God reveals Himself through nature and the cosmos, until this class and Dr. Hanna's book for class.
I found it revealing how that Christ is the supreme revelation of God and then there's scripture, the church, nature, the cosmos, etc in which God also reveals Himself to us. It's kinda amazing how much God wants to reveal Himself to us, He's chosen to do it through all sorts of different ways.
I also found it rather revealing that if God does not change and He has revealed Himself through many different ways, then all of them must agree on who God is since they are all accurate revelations of God. Of course this opens up the question of how do deal with the apparent discrepancies that crop up, but that's a different reflection for a different time.
Stephan Albers
Reflection 2
RIH
So I was reflecting a little while back about figuring out how to reconcile apparent contradictory revelations of God in different areas in which He reveals Himself. For instance I was thinking about how if God reveals Himself through nature how can we know what is from God and what isn't? For instance, if I'm lying down in the soft green grass watching the clouds float by above and think about how beautiful the world is, it would be easy for me to say, “Hey, that's a revelation of how neat God is.” But let's say I look and see a beautiful fawn playing with a butterfly when suddenly a mountain lion jumps out from the brush, attacks it, snaps it neck and starts eating it in front of me. It wouldn't be so easy to say wow look how neat my God is!
So how do I know that one is a revelation of God and the other isn't? Where do I get that from? Sure the sky may show a nice God. But what keeps us from saying, “no that mountain lion is a revelation of God's character?” The nearest I can figure is that even though God reveals Himself through nature, it's not enough, it's to tainted by the sin in this world.
The reason I take the time to reflect on this is because someone once talked about God revealing Himself in nature and the cosmos once that it almost sounded like we didn't even need to bother reading our Bibles since God was revealing Himself through nature and even paganism! I beg to differ.
While I agree that God reveals Himself through nature, I also believe that it is incomplete. I also believe that He reveals Himself through the church more completely, but not completely. I also believe even more so in Scripture and then ultimately He is revealed through Christ.
Now all of this has gotten me thinking. Because the life of Christ is revealed to us through scripture that was not directly dictated by God. Is the little that has been given to us a complete revelation. I'm thinking no. I'm starting to think that our God is so awesome and so infinite, that we will spend all eternity learning more and more about our great God and how awesome He is.
a response to bigogo's comment no 4.
i like the way how you emphasized the importance of the holy spirit in hermeneutics. it is ture that the holy spirit transforms our natural mind into a new mind.He enlightens our minds and make us understands His divvine revealations us us.IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO REVEALS THE SECRET THINGS OF GOD US.
response on keivin solomon's comment no 4.
its very intretint the way how you have said in your comment. chist is the incarnte ;the word was was God's revealation to human beings written in human language., and that the word who is Jesus Christ is God who took human flesh in order to save us.
a response to wayne jamel
on his comment on divinity and humanity of Jesus:
yes is true that christ's humanity was united with divinity........ as you have quoated it from E.G.White! it is very interesting fact!
Edson Patrice- The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Chapter 2.
Blog Submission #1
What does biblical authority mean? This is a question that can yield any number of answers. Of course when one considers the scriptures as the express thought of God this makes it difficult to accept more than one definition for this expression. In Professor Hanna’s book the second chapter wrestles with the implications of that expression with what I believe is a comprehensive outlook. The authority of scripture as it relates to other books is not particularly a tough concept to grasp. Others have valid problems with the accuracy of such a book written with its unique characteristics and should seek clarity or at times divine intervention to deal with those dilemmas. But I am convinced that scripture stands above all other books inspired or not as an authority never to be overthrown. It is in the suggestion that Professor Hanna makes in his book that makes me ponderous. What do we really mean when we speak of scriptures authority? Indeed it is the rule of faith. This means that the primary source of our Christian identity should be from holy writ. The pill is getting larger and thus more difficult to swallow. Well, you may be thinking, that doesn’t seem too difficult. Perhaps, but where does scriptures authority fall in relation to Christ? One may honestly see this as a moot question because the bible clearly states in John that Christ was in the beginning and was the word. But to accept Christ as the author of scripture says nothing, if there is anything worth saying, about the rank of scripture in relation to Christ. I feel that Dr. Hanna’s proposal in this chapter suggest that both the cosmos and Christ receive their authority from scripture and implies that scripture gives authority to Christ. In other words, the Word in its original form gave authority to the Word in its incarnate form. What does this mean? This means that even Christ, who is authoritative Himself, had to be held up against scripture for His credentials. The more poignant point that Hanna makes in this chapter is how scripture can comment on the theological interpretation of all knowledge. This has amazing coherence. I think its Jesus’ personal checks and balances system.
Edson Patrice- The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Chapter 2
Blog Submission # 2
In my last submission I spoke of the authority of scripture as it relates to Christ. I commented on Dr. Hanna’s statements about the primacy of scripture as it relates to one of the other two revelations given to us by God. For this submission I would like to comment on the latter revelation. There is likely no gap that is seemingly as wide as scripture is to nature. In fact the dissonance that exists between scientists and theologians has become a matter of pop-culture, as it is so pervasive. In my class about the Issues in Origins we are exposed to countless material from various sources that present factual information about the world we live in. These facts in most part are presented with a great deal of emphasis on the empirical data. Scientists see collected data as the irrefutable evidence for the claims they make which are often implicit if not overt attacks on faith. In response to such claims theologians seem to make lackluster arguments. Somehow the rhetoric always seems to be on the empiricist’s playing field. Undoubtedly the scripture is a document of faith and might seem to be a foreign entity to that of that scientist, but nothing could ever be closer. The authority of scripture as a rule for our faith points to the cosmos as a subservient but also authoritative aspect of God’s revelation. It is the responsibility of theologians and scientist alike to observe this inextricable relationship as they seek to reconcile one to the other. But make no mistake about it, there must be and is perfect symmetry between the two. I believe that mysteries that lie in either are an invitation to avoid autonomy or being more precise, authoritarian power. This is not the kind of power the scripture yields.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Hermeneutics & Culture
Blog Submission #3
Presuppositions can be deceptively subtle to the mind of even the most seasoned bible student. This makes the challenge of exposing them the theological equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack. If it is at all possible the challenge is double when one considers the influence of culture in this interpretation. Professor Hanna reminds us in his book that the role of human experience should not be discarded when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. Bible students draw on the personal experience of their lives and with the inspiration of its Author come to an understanding of what message should be translated to. Now in this article culture is defined as the sum total of ways of living developed by a group handed down from generation to generation. This means that culture itself is a progressive agent. Antiquity on the other hand, or cultures of the past is not. In fact it is quite static. Stress must be placed on the student who reads the bible indeed but this becomes more and more vital as time passes on. Certainly when the letters of Paul were written the axioms and cultural references used did not require explanation from Paul. They were immediately understood. The supremacy of the Bible’s position should not be seen because of all the ancillary tools used to help with deciphering those cultural references but predominantly in the cultural transcendence of its Author. I am not discounting the usefulness of these adjuncts to scripture but stressing the point that they should not be seen as supreme themselves. If we fail to preserve the scriptures ability to interpret it self then we commit the crime of this articles most obvious point Bible above culture.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Hermeneutics and Culture
Blog Submission #4
On the subject of interpretation this article provoked a few questions for me as it relates to the black liberation theology movement and the black experience. It is worth reiterating the importance of the human experience when studying the scriptures. This paints the lens that the Holy Spirit hopefully subscribes. As the article states the narrative of liberation finds its most colorful support in the story of the Egyptian slavery of the Jews. So fundamental is this view of liberation in the black experience that it even paints the hue in which God is seen. Surely he is the liberator of His people who sets them free from the evil oppressors of His chosen. The aspect of this theology is obviously limited. It typifies the oppressed as the good and the oppressors as evil. This may fit with the narrative of the Egyptian enslavement but it would fail in the rubric of all the other oppressions God’s people faced throughout the narrative of scripture. Such an example of this could be found in the story of the Babylonian captivity. This oppression was a milder one but no form of oppression is favorable. Another aspect of this that’s limited is how it isolates races that never experienced any major oppression. While a number of categories within the human race can relate the male Anglo is the least relatable if at all to this view. Scripture must rise above this mindset because God sets oppressors and the oppressed but He wishes to save all.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
Blog Submission #5
How does faith relate to reason as the bible student studies the Word of God? I realize this question has many levels to give an adequate answer. The first question that would need to be answered to even begin answering the first is what is the relationship between faith and reason? In the pursuit of biblical truth the correct answer to that question is: faith is above reason. This is a clear prerequisite of the biblical approach. To give faith and reason the same authority would be a tacit acceptance of the historical-critical rubric of bible interpretation. Once everything has its place is the student of scripture clear to dive into the word of God? No. It is also important to establish that reason has been sanctified. Faith is a gift from God but so is reason. Faith is born of the Spirit who gives to all without measure but all have a measure of reason given to them from birth. The transformation that occurs during conversion does not leave the reason the same. The Spirit must also transform the “logic board” of the brain to be in concert with the faith of the soul. A spiritual truth of the bible needs the Spirit to decode it. However, it is important to note that this is a gradual process. Not because the spirit is not renewed but because the effect of the flesh must be gradual weakened until it is dead.
Edson Patrice- Understanding Scripture: Hermeneutics of the bible Apocalyptic
Blog Submission# 6
The hermeneutical framework used in the interpretation of prophecy involves a lot of thoughtfulness. This is primarily because prophetic material holds a lot of emotional capital in the heart of its readers. Ellen White is clear about how misuse of prophecy can be very hurtful to the faith of a believer. The reckless use of prophecy for the sake of causing revival may provide a short-term response but creates animosity if claims are unmet. We know that the bible has predictive power. This is evidence of the life giving power of God’s word because it even feeds future events into existence. However the popular use of prophecy, even among bible believer Christians seek to make the bible into nothing more than a modern-day psychic or astrologer. This seeps into the hermeneutic of bible students through suppositions that incite fear and complacency. Prophecy is not made to scare or inspire inertia. On the contrary it is given to us as a source of peace and security and always motivates one to action. Often the prophecy leads the diligent student into a direct relationship with the predicted event and how they will play a role in the matter at hand. Unfortunately, the film industry has taken ownership of this part of scripture. Bold students of prophecy can use it during evangelism in a way that avoids demonization of individuals but exposes the ensuing deceptions. We need to claim back a redemptive portrayal of prophecy
Post a Comment