The Cross of the Reigning King

And He shall reign for ever and ever. Hallelujah!!

1 posted on 04/18/2002 9:26:42 PM PDT by sola gracia

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; JenB; Thinkin' Gal; Jerry_M; BibChr; enemy of the people; nightdriver...

2 posted on 04/18/2002 9:27:56 PM PDT by sola gracia

Yeah, what a wonderful Kingdom, eh? Satan bound and inactive, truth reigning supreme, all lawlessness and rebellion and infidelity banished, justice and righteousness flowing like a river, oppression and treachery and heresies all banished forever, just like the Bible says!

Wonderful place!

In your dreams.

Dan

3 posted on 04/19/2002 7:39:59 AM PDT by BibChr

To: BibChr; sheltonmac

This is just for you Dan. Enjoy:

The Kingdom of God
George Eldon Ladd

George Eldon Ladd is Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

There is little doubt that the central burden of our Lord's teaching was the coming of God's kingdom. Even before Jesus began His ministry, John the Baptist electrified the people with the prophetic announcement, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2).¹ Then "Jesus began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' " (Matt. 4:17). "And He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel [i.e., the good news] of the kingdom" (Matt. 4:23).

In His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Jesus describes the righteousness of the kingdom. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3). "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). Addressing His disciples later, Jesus said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets [lit., mysteries] of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13:11). At the end of His ministry, He instructed His disciples in the course of this age and the coming of the kingdom. "This gospel [good news] of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come" (Matt. 24:14). Jesus gave a parable of judgment in which He described the fate of the righteous in terms of the kingdom of God by saying, "Then the King will say to those at His right hand, 'Come, 0 blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' " (Matt. 25:34).

To understand what this means, we must turn to the Old Testament. While the Old Testament never uses the term "kingdom of God," the idea can be found in all the prophets. One thing not often noted by evangelicals is that in the Old Testament it is often God who comes to establish His kingdom. This will mean judgment for the wicked but salvation for God's righteous people. In the short book of Zephaniah the coming of God is often described as the day of the Lord.

In this and in many other prophetic passages, there is no messianic personage. God Himself will visit His people to judge the wicked and bring salvation to the righteous.

While the Old Testament never uses the term "kingdom of God," the idea can be found in all teh prophets

The Davidic King

There are, however, three messianic passages in the prophets which speak specifically of an Anointed One who will reign in God's kingdom when it is established.

Here is a conquering Messiah. He arises from the family of David. The line of Davidic kings will seem to have run out, but from the fallen tree will come forth a new growth. The all-important passage is: "But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked" (Isa. 11:4). Here is the twofold mission of Messiah. Although a Davidic King, He will be supernaturally endowed to destroy all who oppose the reign of God. At the same time He will bring salvation to the "meek of the earth," i.e., those whose only trust is in the Lord. His saving and judging word will also include the redemption of nature. The passage concludes with a beautiful picture of peace restored to a fallen world. Ferocious animals will no longer threaten man. Venomous animals will be tamed. "They shall not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:9).

This is basically the same picture found in Zephaniah. The wicked are judged. The righteous are saved. The world is transformed. In Zephaniah it is God who comes. In Isaiah it is a Son of David.

There are three messianic passages in the prophets which speak specifically of an Anointed One who will reign in God's kingdom when it is established

The Son of Man

There is a second and very different picture of the Messiah in Daniel 7, where the seer is given a vision of the coming of God's kingdom. He sees God, here called the "Ancient of Days," seated on His throne (Dan. 7:9).

Here is no son of David. Here is a heavenly, transcendent Being who comes with the clouds to the Ancient of Days to receive the kingdom of God. The passage is interpreted, "And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan. 7:27). He comes to the throne of God in heaven, receives a kingdom from the hand of God, and then brings it to the saints on earth, who enjoy the blessings of God's rule over them forever.

The Suffering Servant

A third messianic personage in the Old Testament is very different from the two already discussed. At this point it would be well to read the familiar words of Isaiah 53. Here is a Servant of the Lord whose mission is to suffer, to be "bruised for our iniquities" and "wounded for our transgressions," who makes Himself "an offering for sin," who shall "make many to be accounted righteous" by bearing their iniquities, who "poured out His soul to death" by bearing the sin of many.

Most of the time we read and interpret these words through Christian eyes, as we rightly should. But we should read the chapter again as though we knew nothing about Jesus and His mission. We have read about the Messiah-king in Isaiah. But the Suffering Servant does not slay the wicked with the rod of His mouth. He does not deliver God's people by supernatural power. On the contrary, He is beaten. He is afflicted. He is slain. He redeems God's people not by might or power, but by suffering for them. He is called neither the Messiah nor the Son of Man. He is called only God's Servant (Isa. 52:13).

These three diverse messianic concepts seem to have no relationship to each other: a conquering Davidic King, a heavenly, supernatural Son of Man and a humble Suffering Servant of the Lord. How can these personages be related? They seem to have nothing in common except that they are raised up by the Lord to redeem His people. The idea of a supernaturally endowed, conquering Davidic King seems the opposite of a weak, humble, suffering, dying Servant.

The Jews of Jesus' day did not know what to do with these three concepts. In the Jewish literature pre-dating the New Testament, Enoch elaborately develops the Danielic idea of a heavenly Son of Man. The Psalms of Solomon pray for the coming of the Lord's Anointed (Messiah) to smite the Romans who had taken Palestine, to purge the temple in Jerusalem of their abomination, and to gather the Jewish people at Jerusalem in victory over their foes. Here is the conquering Davidic King of Isaiah. But the Jews never knew how to relate these two concepts to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Judaism did not consider this a messianic prophecy. In view of such passages as Isaiah 49:3, 5-6 and Isaiah 50:10, Judaism felt that the people of Israel constituted the servant of God.

The Kingdom of God in the Gospels

When we turn to the Gospels to ask what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God, we should first note that the basic idea in the kingdom of God (or heaven) was that of the coming of a heavenly Son of Man to judge the wicked and to redeem the righteous. "So every one who acknowledges [lit., confesses] Me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32). We must set this verse beside a similar one: "And I tell you, every one who acknowledges [confesses] Me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge [confess] before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8-9). Jesus is thus destined to be the heavenly Son of Man of Daniel 7

The same fact is affirmed in Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. "The high priest asked Him, 'Are You the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven' " (Mark 14:61-62). It is notable that Jesus never advanced any claim to be the Messiah (Davidic King) throughout His ministry. However, when challenged directly, He admitted that He was the Messiah. But as the passage shows, He is the Messiah of the Danielic Son of Man type. In effect, Jesus said, "Today I am standing before the Sanhedrin being judged. But the day will come when you will stand before My judgment seat to be judged by the Son of Man."

In the Gospels the basic idea in the kingdom of God (or heaven) was that of the coming of a heavenly Son of Man to judge the wicked and to redeem the righteous

The same "eschatological" meaning of the kingdom of God is found in a parable Jesus gave His disciples near the end of His ministry. "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne" (Matt. 25:31). Before Him will be gathered all the nations of men to give account of how they have treated His "brothers," i.e., His disciples (Matt. 12:48). The wicked who have rejected and abused His disciples will be sent to the lake of fire "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25: 41). To the righteous, who have welcomed Jesus' emissaries, He says, "Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34). The parable concludes, "And they [the wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). Here it is clear that the kingdom awaits the glorious coming of the Son of Man, and the life of the kingdom is eternal life. We usually speak of the "second coming of Christ," but this is not a common biblical idiom and is found only in Hebrews 9:28. We will not here discuss the meaning of this parable-who the "brothers" of Jesus are or what form the kingdom of God takes. It is sufficient to emphasize that the kingdom of God comes only with the glorious coming of the Son of Man bringing eternal life to those whom God has chosen.

The same truth emerges in the discussion between Jesus and the rich young ruler, recorded in Matthew 19:16-30 and in Mark 10:17-31. The young man asked Jesus, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" (Matt. 19:16). This question must not be thought of in light of the Gospel of John, but in light of the Old Testament. Unlike John, nowhere in the three synoptic Gospels is eternal life a present blessing. The young man was asking about the eternal life of Daniel 12:2: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Eternal life, like the kingdom of God, belongs to the future-to the day of resurrection. In His reply Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24). The terms "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are interchangeable here, especially since Mark uses "kingdom of God" in both parallel passages (Mark 10:23, 25).

The disciples were amazed and asked, "Who then can be saved?" (Matt. 19:25). Jesus replied that this was beyond human ability, but it was possible with God. Then the disciples, who had left everything to follow Jesus, asked about their own fate. Jesus replied that they would experience blessings in this age, but "in the age to come eternal life" (Mark 10:30).

The Two Ages

This truth is often obscure to those who read only the King James version of the Bible. The New Testament divides redemptive history into two ages: this age of mortality, death and sin, and the age to come, when God's rule will be perfectly realized in all the world. The Old Testament does not make this division, though the idea is present. The two ages are divided by the coming of God in the person of the Son of Man. The day of the Lord will be marked by resurrection and judgment. In Matthew 18 and Mark 10, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, salvation and eternal life all belong to the age to come.

The futuristic, eschatological character of the kingdom of God is further seen in the parables of Matthew 13. At the coming of the Son of Man the angels will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers (Matt. 13:41). Again in the parable of the net Jesus said, "The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire" (Matt. 13:49-50).

The same theology occurs in Paul, though he uses the term "kingdom of God" infrequently. Writing about the resurrection, Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as the first fruits, "then at His coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For He must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15: 23-26).

The book of Revelation is largely devoted to this theme. In chapter 19 the parousia or second coming of Christ is pictured, with Christ seen as a conqueror riding a white battle horse. He first destroys the antichrist, casting him into the lake of fire. He then turns upon the power behind antichrist, the devil, and destroys him (Rev. 20). In their interpretation of Revelation 20:1-4, evangelicals differ as to whether Christ's victory proceeds in two stages (premillennialism) or only one (amillennialism). But in both interpretations the goal or underlying theology is the same-the destruction of the enemies of God and man. In Revelation, as in Corinthians, the last enemy to be destroyed is death (Rev. 20:14).

The New Testament divides redemptive history into two ages: this age of mortality, death and sin, and the age to come, when God's rule will be perfectly realized in all the world. The wo ages are divided by the coming of God in the person of the Son of Man.

In summary, the Old Testament has the idea but not the idiom of the kingdom of God. It envisages a coming of God Himself, or of a conquering Davidic King, or of a heavenly Son of Man coming at the day of the Lord to establish God's reign in the earth. In addition, there is the idea of a Suffering Servant, apparently unrelated to the other ideas The establishment of God's perfect reign on earth will mean the judgment of the wicked, the redemption of the righteous, and the transformation of the world by a mighty creative act of God.

The New Testament also has the kingdom of God as a central theme. Its further revelation does not basically change the Old Testament concept. The New Testament divides redemptive history into two ages: this age and the age to come. These are divided by the day of the Lord and the coming of the heavenly Son of Man, with whom Jesus identified Himself. Again the kingdom of God means the perfect reign of God, destroying His enemies and bringing salvation to the righteous. We may therefore define the kingdom of God as the perfect reign of God, destroying His enemies and bringing to His people the blessings of His reign. In the passages considered thus far, the kingdom belongs to the age to come and will be established only by a mighty, Supernatural act of God in the coming of the Son of Man, usually spoken of as the second coming of Christ. However, in further study of the Gospels from an Old Testament perspective, we find an utterly unexpected phenomenon. Jesus taught that He, the son of Mary and a well-known inhabitant of Nazareth, already was the Son of Man. As the Son of Man, He claimed authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). As the Son of Man, He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, i.e., of the whole Old Testament law (Mark 2:28). This amazed and confounded people. When Jesus spoke of the coming of an eschatological Son of Man, their idea of what He meant was shaped by Daniel. But when He claimed that He Himself would be the heavenly Son of Man, they became confused. And when He further claimed to already be the Son of Man, their confusion deepened. For in the Old Testament the Son of Man is a heavenly figure who comes with glory, not as a man among men.

The confusion of the Jews deepened even further when Jesus taught that He, as the Son of Man, would fulfill the prophecy of the Suffering Servant. "The Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Here was mystery indeed. The Old Testament concepts of the heavenly Son of Man and of the Suffering Servant seemed to be mutually exclusive. But Jesus reinterpreted the Old Testament in terms of His own person and mission, i.e., the heavenly Son of Man had appeared on earth as a man among men to fulfill the redeeming task of the Suffering Servant. In the future He would fulfill the prophecy of Daniel by coming to earth again with glory as the heavenly Son of Man.

In other words, Jesus interpreted His twofold mission in terms of the Son of Man. He had come as the suffering Son of Man to lay down His life to redeem men. In the future He would come as the glorious Son of Man to establish God's reign in the world.

To read the rest of the article CLICK HERE

4 posted on 04/19/2002 11:22:16 AM PDT by sola gracia

Been there, done that.

Ladd was a Fuller Seminary prof hot to be well-thought-of by European liberals. He's since changed his mind on the issue.

Let's see, where's a Ryrie article I can cut and paste, so I can stop having to look at the Bible myself and do original writing here? It's got to have pictures....

Dan

5 posted on 04/19/2002 11:44:22 AM PDT by BibChr

Let's see, where's a Ryrie article I can cut and paste, so I can stop having to look at the Bible myself and do original writing here? It's got to have pictures....

Dan, you forgot your link to Biblical Christianity, or don't you post link anymore? Don't put on that "holier than thou" attitude.

6 posted on 04/19/2002 1:14:14 PM PDT by sola gracia

Touched a nerve, did I? SDG!

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site (by special request)

7 posted on 04/19/2002 1:17:36 PM PDT by BibChr

To: sola gracia;dittoJed2;Jean Chauvin;Wrigley;Matchett-PI;Dr. Eckleburg;irishtenor...

8 posted on 04/19/2002 1:35:38 PM PDT by RnMomof7

Dan,
I read your web page concerning your hermeneutics and understand better how you interpret the Bible and why you use this particular hermeneutic. It appears to me that your hermeneutic is a reaction against both ancient and modern gnostcism. The ancient Gnostics would allegorize personal experience out of God while modern Gnostics allegorize God out of personal experience.

From your web page:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental and axiomatic truths, clearly indicate otherwise.

This "Golden Rule" lays down a sound path to follow.11 It will deliver one from the mystical and spiritualizing excesses which have long plagued the Christian church. One who consistently applies this rule will not rob the meanings of the six days of creation, he will not scratch out the historicity of Adam and Eve, he will not equate the Christian church with the "New Israel" (thus annulling all the multitude of still-unfulfilled Biblical prophecies concerning Israel), and he will not magically transform the predicted return of Christ into either a past event (mirabile dictu!)or a personal event at each believer’s death.

It seems your hermeneutic has at least 2 areas of concern to me. 1) Context is developed after your Golden rule. If your hermeneutic logically progresses as outlined on your web page then context comes after a literal reading whereas I would consider context as the foundation of literal reading. For example, when reading the Psalms we understand that the poetic language is metaphorical in many instances so we approach the reading in that manner. Likewise, If I understood the book of Revelations more as a poetical book rather than a historical narrative I would approach the reading of the book of Revelations in a more metaphorical sense. Can you talk to this issue?

2) Your assertion that all metaphors employed in the Bible have a clear meaning seems simplistic. Even the disciples had difficulties understanding Jesus' parables. It seems to me that the reason God uses metaphors and allegories is because it is difficult for the finite human mind to understand the spiritual mind of God. The difficulty in your system is determining what is metaphor and what is literal; there seems to be no methadology.

For example, Galations 3:29 says if I belong to Christ than I am a descendant of Abraham and an heir to all the promises. If I were to read this literally than I would believe once I become a Christian I literally become a Jew. When I read this in the near context I understand it to mean that God promised Abraham that his seed would become the mediator. This was true in Jesus Christ. Then I also understand that the Mosiac covenant and the Law was brought so that we had a tutor to lead us to Christ. Then I learn that through faith anyone who believes in Christ are all part of the same. (v.28) Therefore, I am lead to believe that it God does not seperate us by genetic lineage. In the larger context, I admit, I must allegorize some of the promises made through the prophets. However, in the literal reading in the near context, I am an heir of Abraham and included in all the promises made to Israel. In my thought processes, when I allegorize the Church as Israel in the overall context, is my reading of the near context a wrong reading? How do you overcome some of these conflicts without allegorizing some of scripture? It does not appear that simple to me.

9 posted on 04/19/2002 2:08:36 PM PDT by lockeliberty

To: lockeliberty

Thanks for thoughtful questions! This will require more head-scratching than I can do in good conscience at work today, so I mean to get to this sometime from tonight through wknd, DV. I already owe cartonXXX an answer to a good question in another thread. I love being in this kind of debt — the kind that sends me back to the Word!

Dan

10 posted on 04/19/2002 2:31:38 PM PDT by BibChr

To: lockeliberty; Rnmomof7; sola gracia; dittoJed2; Jean Chauvin; Wrigley; Matchett-PI...

Instead of using the term literal meaning I think a better term is the normal meaning. By this I mean, if the author intend to use figurative language (I am the door of the sheep) we seek to understand the point of comparison being made.If the author did not intend a figure we do not introduce one.

A document well interpreted fairly and accurately reflects the intent of the author.

Mortimer Adler's, "How to Read a Book" is a classic on interpreting literature and advocates methodology I find helpful in biblical interpretation. This approach does not resolve all conflicts by any means, but it is IMHO, a clear statement of the task.

11 posted on 04/19/2002 3:00:17 PM PDT by drstevej

To: drstevej;BibChr;lockeliberty; sola gracia; Jean Chauvin; Wrigley; Matchett-PI.

Good discussion. I think the goal is to determine the original intent (akin to the approach Robert Bork, et al. advocate in interpreting the Constitution). The question to be answered is what did the author intend to communicate to his audience readers? Context, grammar, historical background etc. are the means to this end.
Instead of using the term literal meaning I think a better term is the normal meaning. By this I mean, if the author intend to use figurative language (I am the door of the sheep) we seek to understand the point of comparison being made.If the author did not intend a figure we do not introduce one.

I thought you would like this thread..I am NO scholar.You and Dan are the professionals ..Locke is a studied man..me I limp along

I have to say that my nature is to read it trying to understand what it meant at the time..to that end I have purchased books on Jewish customs and History..

It seems that so much that is said we miss because of the time and cultural distance..As an example If you follow through the OT to the NT you see what the meaning of "I am the Bread of life " is and you see the Last Supper in the covenant context..if you do not appreciate the understanding of the listeners, you miss the true meaning..and out a literal translation on meaning of the bread at the last supper...the one that the apostles would have had...

12 posted on 04/19/2002 3:12:14 PM PDT by RnMomof7

You're right on track! Bridging the gap of several millennia and diverse culture is a challenge requiring a variety of tools (books on grammar, culture, history, etc.) to handle some passages. However, there are large portions of the Bible that are understandable despite the gaps.

Good commentaries bring the resources together to evaluate in determining meaning. That's why it took 66 boxes to move my library to Baton Rouge! Today the net is making much of this material available for a few key strokes! Unfortunately other key strokes yield pure baloney!

13 posted on 04/19/2002 3:21:44 PM PDT by drstevej

I try to use the same method myself. Sometimes it takes me a lot of effort to do that, but in the long run its worth it. Plus you get to learn some history, which is always fun.

14 posted on 04/19/2002 3:40:20 PM PDT by Wrigley

I tend to read scripture to see what God has to say to ME :>)) Now sometimes I go WOW I never saw that before and I think it means XYZ...THEN I go to the commentaries..(on line and cheap *grin*) I have become a fan of Gill..I love his scholarship.I also look to Calvin..I am not a huge fan of Matthew Henry..but sometime I will read his work ,but it very "devotional" in nature to me..Some time I use Adam Clark..He has a different doctrinal approach..but he has some decent scholarship..

I get very excited when I see a meaning for something and then look it and someone of note saw it first..

The Bible is the most wonderful treasure chest It is new every time you pick it up...

I must make my bible study teachers nuts..they start with a scripture ..and before you know it I have tuned out the class trying to trace down a biblical connection that went off in my head ...had that happen this week with a scripiture that I think I have mis read for years......God is SOOOOOO good!

15 posted on 04/19/2002 3:42:55 PM PDT by RnMomof7

I am a factoid person..I love little cultural tid bits that make scripture come alive...I recently learned something I should have known years ago . What the OT meant when it said that he " touched "his thigh...A small cultural understanding with an interesing translation ..but it shows how deep and important is the honor of posterity..Little things like that make the word of God live..

16 posted on 04/19/2002 3:50:15 PM PDT by RnMomof7

I find it wise to spend a good bit of time reading the text carefully, examining word meanings, reading the context, etc. before dragging out the commentaries. The more familiar I am with the text the better position I am in to evaluate a commentary.

This is the human dimension. The Holy Spirit's ministry of illumination interfaces with our search in a manner I find impossible to fully dilineate. Yet it is indispensible. In this dimension biblical interpretation is not fully parallel to interpreting other literature.

17 posted on 04/19/2002 3:52:17 PM PDT by drstevej

What I always find interesting is that when you read about the history of Biblical times in regards to those living them, ie the prophets, Jesus et al, all the different things that were going on in the world. And how all those come togather to show how much God is in control. It really should humble us.

18 posted on 04/19/2002 3:54:55 PM PDT by Wrigley

I love to cross reference scriptures ..I tried the read through the Bible in a year program . I did it, but hated it. My Pastor said that just a plain reading is sometimes one way to study..but it is against my nature. I love to stop and look at it and cross reference it and consider the meaning of the cross references..that takes time..hard to do in a year:>))

I am going to write you about a scripture I have not yet looked up in the commentaries...I am not sure if my 1st reading was "correct " or the one I had at bible study :>)) Not that the world hangs on it *grin*

19 posted on 04/19/2002 4:14:13 PM PDT by RnMomof7

To: drstevej;Rnmomof7;Wrigley

It seem most of the controversy in the Church revolves around interpretation. For the interested lay person there is an abundance of Christian scholarship on hermeneutics and exegesis to be found on the web. For example, here is a tidbit from this Page

Revelation emanates from God and has resulted in the inspired, divinely superintended Scriptures. The recognition of divine inspiration has resulted in the canon as we have it today. Exegesis seeks to understand the originally intended meaning of the biblical author as he wrote God's message for his particular, contextualized readers. Normal-Literal, Historical-Contextual, Grammatical-Syntactical, Literary-Rhetorical tools aid the exegete in arriving at the original "surface" and/or "existential" meaning.See James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty, "Kingdom Reality: Making the Best of Both Worlds,'' in Beyond the Obvious, (Gresham, Oregon: Vision House Publishing, Inc., 1995):101-122. Theology consists of answering the questions, "What does this text tell me (1) about God, (2) about Man (creation), (3) about the relationship(s) between God and Man, and (4) about the relationship(s) between Man and Men?" These four questions will be answered on at least three levels: the biblical theological, the canonical theological, and the systematic theological

20 posted on 04/19/2002 5:05:41 PM PDT by lockeliberty

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794