I've been leading a small group Bible study on Sunday evenings and we've been reading through the book of Hebrews. Since I'm a much better writer than I am a speaker, I thought I'd post the study here for a wider audience (though, perhaps my small group is larger than my reader base).
There are a few important things that need to be said about Hebrews before actually getting into the text itself. First, Hebrews was written with a Jewish-Christian congregation in mind. The Old Testament is quoted often and the author seems to take for granted a solid understanding of the context for those quotes and an understanding of Judaism in general on the part of his readers. Secondly, the letter is explicitly Christological (or Christo-centric). Except for the gospels, no other New Testament book digs deeper into the person and work of Jesus Christ. Lastly, this book is very covenantal. In Hebrews we are taught about Jesus’ relationship to both the Old and New Covenants (e.g. the priestly role that He plays) and we are taught about the relationship between the covenants themselves (e.g. the Old being a “shadow” and the New being the “reality”). All of these things need to be kept in mind when approaching Hebrews.
The first section of Hebrews that we studied was Hebrews 1-2:4. Here are the questions I asked:
1. What does it mean for God to have made the universe through Jesus? What are some of the implications of Jesus “sustaining all things” through the power of His word?
2. Is it significant that Jesus’ name is superior to the angels’ names? How so?
3. Why does the author quote so much from the OT? Read a few of the passages he quotes, are they clearly referring to Jesus? (Joshua 10:24; 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 97:7; 102:15-27; 103:20; 104:4; Isaiah 51:6; 61:1, 3)
4. Is the question in verse 14 meant to be rhetorical? Why or why not?
5. What is “the word spoken through angels”?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Gas Too!
“Refusing to admit narrative into this debate is therefore like refusing to put petrol in a car because you know that what you need to drive is tyres and a steering wheel.” – N.T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective
I like the way Wright writes. This is my first foray into his corpus and, so far, it has been delightful (of course, this quote comes from page 9, so we’ll see how he holds out). Paul was one of the books cited in the PCA Study report and, from the preface, this book looks to give a fairly concise summary of some of the issues involved in the FV/NPP controversy. It is “this debate” that Write is referring to in the quote above, well the NPP side of it for him at least. The title of the book is telling in a way because Wright wants to, I think (and I’ve read elsewhere in the blogosphere), separate him self, to a certain degree, from those who are participating in the new perspective(s) movement. Though he has contributed largely to it (again, as I’ve been told and as I’ve read elsewhere), it seems to be going in directions that he, perhaps, is not comfortable with.
As to the quote itself, this analogy seems quite an appropriate analysis of what’s going on with all of these reports coming out in the Reformed arena. I’ve always felt a certain affinity for narrative, perhaps due to my love of books/story in general (and all the videogames I’ve played) and my college years only bolstered my conviction that there’s a distinct lack of emphasis regarding narrative as far as systematic theology is concerned. It is likely why I consider myself an FV sympathizer; FV theology resonates with me on that narrative level where the formality of systematic theology and the practicality of biblical theology meet. And I don’t mean “meet” like when you meet new friends, I mean “meet” like accelerated nuclei. To go with Wright’s analogy here, many of the reports are concerned with the integrity of the steering wheel and the tires, which really is important. But most of the FV/NPP people are asking questions about gas, not about the tires and steering wheel (much less about the vehicle as a whole).
I like the way Wright writes. This is my first foray into his corpus and, so far, it has been delightful (of course, this quote comes from page 9, so we’ll see how he holds out). Paul was one of the books cited in the PCA Study report and, from the preface, this book looks to give a fairly concise summary of some of the issues involved in the FV/NPP controversy. It is “this debate” that Write is referring to in the quote above, well the NPP side of it for him at least. The title of the book is telling in a way because Wright wants to, I think (and I’ve read elsewhere in the blogosphere), separate him self, to a certain degree, from those who are participating in the new perspective(s) movement. Though he has contributed largely to it (again, as I’ve been told and as I’ve read elsewhere), it seems to be going in directions that he, perhaps, is not comfortable with.
As to the quote itself, this analogy seems quite an appropriate analysis of what’s going on with all of these reports coming out in the Reformed arena. I’ve always felt a certain affinity for narrative, perhaps due to my love of books/story in general (and all the videogames I’ve played) and my college years only bolstered my conviction that there’s a distinct lack of emphasis regarding narrative as far as systematic theology is concerned. It is likely why I consider myself an FV sympathizer; FV theology resonates with me on that narrative level where the formality of systematic theology and the practicality of biblical theology meet. And I don’t mean “meet” like when you meet new friends, I mean “meet” like accelerated nuclei. To go with Wright’s analogy here, many of the reports are concerned with the integrity of the steering wheel and the tires, which really is important. But most of the FV/NPP people are asking questions about gas, not about the tires and steering wheel (much less about the vehicle as a whole).
Jesus and Joseph
When I was teaching through the end of Genesis for Sunday school, I came across a parallel that I’d never noticed before. I don’t own a lot of commentaries (yet) so much of my research for teaching is done on the internet using my current theological structure to filter what’s “out there” accordingly. In case you’re like me and haven’t come across this parallel yet, well now you can see when Jesus taught His disciples that all of the Scriptures speak of Him, He wasn’t exaggerating. I’ll list here a few of the more striking parallels; you can find a longer list here or by doing a search for “Joseph Jesus parallel” on Google.
1. Joseph was thirty when Pharaoh made him second in command and Jesus was thirty when He began His ministry – Genesis 41:46; Luke 3:23
2. Joseph was falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife and Jesus was falsely accused by the chief priests (among others) – Genesis 39:13-18; Mark 14:55-64
3. Joseph was in prison with two criminals, one was saved the other was not. Jesus was crucified with two criminals, one was saved the other was not – Genesis 40:2-3, 20-22; Luke 23:33, 39-43 – what makes this particular parallel even more interesting is that the criminals with Joseph were a cupbearer and a baker, wine and bread correlating with the Lord’s Supper.
4. Joseph was “raised” three times: once out of the pit (Genesis 37:28) once to be the ruler of Egypt (Genesis 41:41) and once again when Jacob is told he is still alive (Genesis 45:26:28). Jesus was raised three times as well, once on the cross (John 19:17-18), once from the grave (Matthew 18:5-6) and once more into heaven itself (Acts 1:9).
5. Joseph saved his people from certain death (Genesis 41:55-42:1-2). Jesus saves His people from certain death (John 10:27-29).
If you check out the link above you’ll see many more parallels. The site I linked isn’t the best one, it was just the first one I clicked after I ran the Google search. It’s truly incredible that Moses, having no knowledge of Jesus whatsoever and writing well over a thousand years before Him, could construct such a close parallel. Divine inspiration? You bet.
1. Joseph was thirty when Pharaoh made him second in command and Jesus was thirty when He began His ministry – Genesis 41:46; Luke 3:23
2. Joseph was falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife and Jesus was falsely accused by the chief priests (among others) – Genesis 39:13-18; Mark 14:55-64
3. Joseph was in prison with two criminals, one was saved the other was not. Jesus was crucified with two criminals, one was saved the other was not – Genesis 40:2-3, 20-22; Luke 23:33, 39-43 – what makes this particular parallel even more interesting is that the criminals with Joseph were a cupbearer and a baker, wine and bread correlating with the Lord’s Supper.
4. Joseph was “raised” three times: once out of the pit (Genesis 37:28) once to be the ruler of Egypt (Genesis 41:41) and once again when Jacob is told he is still alive (Genesis 45:26:28). Jesus was raised three times as well, once on the cross (John 19:17-18), once from the grave (Matthew 18:5-6) and once more into heaven itself (Acts 1:9).
5. Joseph saved his people from certain death (Genesis 41:55-42:1-2). Jesus saves His people from certain death (John 10:27-29).
If you check out the link above you’ll see many more parallels. The site I linked isn’t the best one, it was just the first one I clicked after I ran the Google search. It’s truly incredible that Moses, having no knowledge of Jesus whatsoever and writing well over a thousand years before Him, could construct such a close parallel. Divine inspiration? You bet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)