In part two we get drawn to the hymn in Phil 2 and discover not only what Jesus' disscension is all about, but also get to understand the talk of us being gifts in Eph 4:11-13 better. (If you have not listened to part 1 do listen to that first.)
Being Ideal Readers: 1 in which we discover the importance of a Psalm
In this podcast we'll begin to grapple with a complicated idea, but quite simply begin to discover how to become (more) ideal readers. We'll be looking at Eph 4 , and you will also need a bookmark in Ps 68 . This is a podcast in two parts (otherwise I'd have to change the name to 10 minute Bible, so do listen to tomorrow's episode after today's ;)
Casuistic and apodictic: part 3: Jesus reads more Scripture
We look at how Jesus reads other Bible passages (still in Matthew 5) to begin confirming the hypothesis that to read Scripture with Jesus is to make it so extreme that rules (casuistic law) become goals (apodictic command). Before you get to the next podcast it would be a good idea to listen to "What DOES "fulfil" mean?" and "Jesus as fulfilment of Scripture: Slavery and Spanking"
In this I'll tell you how I think Jesus offers the key to how we should understand the casuistic laws of the Old Testament. It's simple, but as I'll go on to show in later 'casts profound. The clue is found in a passage we've looked at before (Matt 5) especially in Matt 5:17-22. (See here for that 'cast, and here for a whole sermon ;) .
Casuistic and apodictic: part 1: What the terms mean
The distinction between casuistic and apodictic formulations of "legal" material in the Bible, seems like a prime example of scholarship which has lost touch with the needs of real Bible readers. Not least the abstruse technical language puts people off. Yet this distinction has deeply theological consequences, and Jesus seems to "fulfill" OT law (at least in part) by rephrasing the casuistic as apodictic.
In this first part I'll begin the boring stuff, and introduce what scholars meant by distinguishing casuistic from apodictic material in the laws of the Old Testament. Part 2 will get to the exciting stuff. (I know this is not the best way to gain your attention, but sometimes work is needed before the fun can start.)
After looking at Direct speech in biblical narratives and especially how the manner of speaking characterises Boaz and Naomi in the book of Ruth and a side glance at the question of whether Ruth's very arrival at Boaz' field was chance or not (in Chance or Providence?) I'd like now to suggestthat thinking more deeply about how Ruth is portrayed in chapter 2 can add a sharpness and richness to the story. There is little of direct theological significance to this exercise, but in terms of the sort of reading Scripture as a way of exploring ourselves and our world (that Julia and I have been extoling in Reading Novels, Reading the Bible and Hard Times for Bible Readers respectively) this sort of nuance can be highly significant!
The work referred to in the podcast is: Crapon de Caprona, Pierre. Ruth la Moabite : essai. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1982.
Amos 7:14 is a striking problem for interpreters, not least because what Amos is reported as saying to Amaziah seems to contradict what he is reported to be doing in the rest of the book. This makes it fertile ground for us to incorporate either our presuppositions or rhetoric into the text.
My tradition (the Baptist part of the Nonconformist or radical Reformation) has stressed the idea that Scripture is perspicuous, that the Bible is easy to understand, and that anyone can understand it - or at least grasp its essentials - without special training or equipment. Yet there are for sure some difficult passages. There are also passages that seem to flat out contradict other parts of the Bible. How can you call a book like that "perspicuous"?
In this post I'll argue that one key mistake we make is to think of the Bible as if all its parts were also "Bible", they aren't they are merely fragments!
At the end of the book of Ezra there a horrid account of Ezra and the "officials" gang up to force Judeans who have married foreign women to divorce them and send away them and their children. What do we do with passages like this? And as part of our thinking on this, where DO our values come from? If they don't come from the Bible, then do we have to use values established elsewhere to "judge" Scripture? Many people today do just that. But I'm a Baptist, Scripture is my final authority in matters of faith and practice, or is it?
Many people think the Bible is like a hologram, any part of which shows the truth. The practice of scholars, preachers and teachers, of citing single verses or lists of verses to demonstrate something, encourages this view. The claim that the Bible is "inerrant" in all its parts seems to seal the idea. Yet in the Bible God itself told us in the Bible that it is false!
How do we picture Scripture? That is what is/are the (unconscious) models in our heads as we read and use the Bible? This 'cast refers particularly to Gen 18:20ff. and Amos 7.
Jesus as fulfilment of Scripture: Slavery and Spanking
This 'cast continues the theme of Jesus as the "fulfilment" of Scripture, looking at one topic that's been settled for decades, and another that's as hot as today's headlines. (At least here in NZ where a bill to criminalise parents spanking children is set to become law shortly!)
