Mon 20 Aug 2007
Reserve Reading #1 – Preaching & Teaching From the Old Testament
Posted by S.G.R. Webster under An Introduction to the Old Testament
[30] Comments
-
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- Monday, Aug 20th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
- Category :
- An Introduction to the Old Testament
- Tags :
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-
What does Kaiser mean when he says that mere possession of that word alone will not be enough to fortify the community in times of need and what”word” is he referring to in that context?
I understand and agree with what Kaiser says (and what you have said time and time again) that the text itself holds the meaning and we shouldn’t approach the text with an agenda. But my question is, does it stop there? I’m inclined to think that it doesn’t from personal experience. Like when I read Isaiah 56 and it talks about God giving to eunuchs that keep his commandments riches greater than sons or a lasting name, I’m greatly comforted by that. I guess to expand on my question I should ask, how does that very real principle of applicability fit into the philosophy that the meaning of the text only comes from the text? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear what you have to say.
Please excuse the really long comment.
My question is from page 25, when Kaiser is talking about Israel being cut out of it’s own tree, and then he says “(which was rooted in the promises made to the patriarchs)”.
What were those promises?
Kaiser said that the Word of God is less important than Jesus. I always took it that the word of God is in essence God, and God is no more or less important than Jesus, but Kaiser seems to disagree with this on pg. 18. What is he talking about?
In the conclusion Kaiser says that “reading the Bible backward is incorrect historically as well as procedurally”. Does he think that curious unbelievers and new believers should start at the beginning?
How did the disciples not know that they were experiencing things that had already been predicted? Also, when Kaiser quotes the Amos 8:11-12 verse, does it mean there will come a day when we won’t have the Bible?
Is Kaiser saying that all people should start reading the Bible in the Old Testament then work their way to the New Testament so they see the foundation, or is it beneficial to direct new believers to the New Testament, which is easier to understand, then to the Old to see the history and the truth in what they’re reading?
What does it mean when Kaiser says, “The text has but one meaning, the meaning intended by its author; and there is but one method for discovering that meaning, the grammatical-historical method?
Did the Old Testament writers, even as early as Moses, know that they were writing about God’s son and the events to follow?
Are people that call themselves Christians but don’t believe that they need the O.T. really Christians?
How can Becker and others see the fact that the New Testament itself states that events happen “So that the Scriptures might be fulfilled,” and the connections and still be skeptical about the “messianic consciousness” of the Old Testament?
I also second Kelsey’s question.
How do the ceremonial laws teach us to draw a line between the sacred and the secular. Does he mean that what the Israelites sacrificied and how they did it shows what is sacred and what is not?
Why does God decide to pick certain times in history to make himself scarce?
My question is kind of the same as Friesen’s. What makes God pick those times to make his word scarce and because we take the Scriptures for granted so much in America and our society do you think we might be on the verge of one of those times?
Kaiser says, “The text has but one meaning, the meaning intended by the author; and there is but one method for discovering that meaning, the grammatical-historical method.” Is it wrong to interpret something from the Old Testament different then someone else if there is only one way?
When Kaiser starts talking about how when the Word of God grows scarce or silent, our days become darker and thicken and an unbearable sadness glooms and set in over us, do you think our generations will reach that? Or are there enough strong Christians around to keep His Word alive?
Kaiser starts out the chapter with a story about people actually asking him not to teach from the OT. I was blown away when I read that. Then toward the end of his conclusion he translates Acts 28:23 into his own words and says that Paul was “…trying to persuade them concerning Jesus both from that law of Moses and from the prophets….” Aren’t there so many different things to be learned from the OT and shouldn’t we start to teach from it more often? Sometimes I feel as if it’s not taken seriously.
Why would God chose to make his word scarce as a form of punishment? Is it to get peoples attention that they took it for granted?
My question is kind of like Molly Bada’s, but did the authors of the Old Testament understand all that they were writing and know that it would be studied generations later like we’re studying it now?
Kaiser states that continual neglect of the Word of God can lead to God making his Word more scarce. He then describes the Genevan’s proposed cure for this darkness through an increased number sermons and suggests we do the same. Did the increased number of sermons make a notable difference in the spiritual state of Geneva? Would it do the same in the U.S.?
Kaiser quotes Amos 8:11-12, which talks about a “famine of the words of the Lord,” and says that there will be a time when people will search all over for the Word of God. Those verses make me think about the current situations in America. Things like taking “In God We Trust” off of coins, or being sworn into office with your hand on a book other than the Bible. Could this just be the beginning of what is mentioned in Amos? It really makes me wonder how long it will take for these changes to escalate until finally the Bible is scarce.
If Kaiser is basically saying that we need to start in the Old Testament, then what about new believers? Would it be best for them to start with one or the other? Would it be more beneficial for them to kinda jump back and forth between the two and read both at the same time so that they can maybe see the connections more easily, or what would be the best approach?
Kaiser says on page 12 that in order to help understand the meaning of the O.T. texts, we must observe the genre of that text to interpret, then to preach on it. How can knowing that the Psalms are poetry, for example, help us to understand and preach better on the Psalms? It doesn’t seem to make a huge difference or help, but Kaiser seems to think so, and I don’t understand why.
Most people have a hard time reading throught the Old Testament because of whats written and the way it was written. Did the authors realize how difficult it would be to understand it, and how is knowing what kind of writing it is help us to understand it better?
Kaiser says on page 23 that the ceremonial laws were to teach us to draw a line in the sand, demarcating the sacred and the secular and setting apart that which is holy from the common. Now that we no longer have to abide by the ceremonial laws, how do we know what holy things to separate? Should we even set things apart as being holy in fear that we may start to unknowingly idolize it?
On page 10 Bright says “The text has but one meaning, the meaning intended by its author.” When do we know if we have attained the original meaning? Can we always/ever be absolutely certain of the author’s intentions?
Why is the Word of God so scarce in Samuels’s days then it later becomes powerful, but today it’s scarce again?
On pg. 16, Kaiser Jr. says that the Scripture is God-breathed. How can we tell that someone really did have the influence of the Holy Spirit when writing Scripture and didnt just say they did? They could’ve, for all we know, written a few things that sound righteous and a few false conversations with God (“thus the LORD says”) in.
Does the text mean it is incorrect to read the bible backwards, or does he mean it is inadvisable?
If we already have the Bible, what does Kaiser mean on page 18 by saying “Continual neglect of the Word can lead to God Himself making the Word scarce so that few can find it and thus profit from applying its message.”