Job is one of those books of the Bible that I still feel I don’t really know what to do with. I’m not happy with treatments of it that read it as if the bulk of the book were a paranthesis. But I can’t do better. So I keep reading it, to see what I can learn.
I’m doing some work on Jonah 1 at the moment (again!), and it seems that we have another fine example of responsibility being passed between groups of people and representative individuals.
Jesus said: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
I noticed the other day that Luke uses a different word for “children” here than either Matthew or Mark. Luke uses bre,foj==. Both Matthew and Mark use paidi,on==. (Again, you’d have to have the BW font to see that correctly – the words are brefos and paidion, for those without the fonts.)
I little while ago, I posted about different Bible translations. My post on this blog was simply a copy of a comment a posted on a friend’s blog, in response to his request for advice on which English translation to use for serious study.
I had two follow-ups to that post.
I really like Joel Green’s commentary on Luke, not least because it makes me think.
I’m studying Luke 20:1-18 at the moment.
Peter Leithart (introduction of House for my Name) gives head-crushing as an example of a theme-symbol in the OT. The serpent will have its head crushed in Genesis 3, which makes it significant that the enemies of God frequently have their heads crushed – Goliath, Abimelech etc.
James Jordan (chapter on rocks in Through New Eyes) points out the theme of stones as objects of judgement. The proscribed OT death penalty was for stoning, Daniel 2, Isaiah 8 etc.
We can put these together. Both Abimelech and Goliath are not only killed by having their heads crushed. Their heads are crushed with stones. So when Jesus says that the tenants will have the stone fall on them and crush them, all those allusions – including Genesis 3 – are evoked. The startling thing, of course, in Luke 20 is who the tenants are. Suddenly the people of Jerusalem, primarily but not exclusively their leaders, are being alluded to the serpent, Abimelech, Goliath, Nebuchadnezzar side of the equation. Ouch!
Thanks, Peter Sanlon, for your permission to post a copy of your article from Churchman, entitled The Embers of Preaching and the Flames of Piety.
A stimulating read, folks. It’s easy to point to those outside of evangelicalism, or outside of our bit of evangelicalism, and point out deficiencies in the preaching we find there. It’s easy to exhort one another to address every deficiency that we find in such preaching. But it’s refreshing to find a brother who has had the courage and patience to reflect on the deficiencies within one’s own camp.
To whet your appetite to read the whole thing (13 sides of A5 – not over long!), here’s a paragraph from the introduction:
I remember a conversation two years ago with a Christian brother, discussing how to apply Romans 14-15 today. It's really hard. Because, by definition, all the examples Paul picks are areas of life where we think we're right. So how do you judge whether this is (a) an example where you have an opinion and must follow it, but refusing to judge / look down on others who think differently is paramount, or (b) an example where you really are right, and others therefore need to be rebuked, corrected, cajoled into thinking the same as you.
Or is that a dilemma to be refused?
Well - I enjoyed Jam Cary's application on his blog. It's really helpful. Thanks, Jam.
A very interesting article on the advent of independent Christian Schools appeared in the Association of Christian Teachers magazine for Spring 2007.
Pondering this some more, I can see entirely where the confusion arises.
Recent comments