Expository
Preaching: Harry Adams
1/15/96:
Lecture
Writing
a Sermon:
A
manuscript is a tool used in making a sermon.
It may not be that the manuscript is used in the sermon. Twelve to twenty minutes. Five to six pages for a twenty-minute
sermon. But he wants it to look
'oral'--larger print, bold-faced, use of spaces, capital-letters. Different levels of emphasis for different
sentences. Which sentences carry the
message?
Writing
a sermon is different than an essay not only in visible form, but in content as
well. The sermon is to be given to
lay-people who don't have the theological vocabulary. So, use words like 'paradigm' or
'eschatology' sparingly, and when used, explain them what they mean. But better than giving a definition is showing
it in the world.
One
should not try to seem objective in giving a sermon. "It has been reported..." should be
avoided. My commitments--what I
believe--is important and ought to be in my sermons. This is not to say that a sermon should not go
beyond my commitments.
Preaching
is for the benefit and welfare of the people.
This not so of a professor in the writing of a term paper. So, preaching is a different, distinct, genre
of communication. One is seeking
profound impact on the audience.
Preaching
is not exegesis of a text reported to the congregation. Preaching focus is on the text as well as the
congregation. The preacher's task is to
relate them. This dual-focus can be seen
as relating the past to the present.
The
Word in Scripture and in Jesus Christ is primary. The Word in preaching is thus a mediation
through which God can speak to his people.
Preaching is an instrument of the Spirit of God. But we can't control the Spirit, so it may
not come out of the Spirit when made or delivered.
It
is important to find out what is of interest to people. People are interested in stories. Preaching has to be incarnate--shown out of
the flesh.
Three
types of sermons: a topical sermon: a topic is the source of the sermon. Textual preaching: a text or portion thereof
is the source of the sermon. Take a
verse or two. Expository sermon: it is
not a verse-by-verse analysis of a text.
One or two verses can be the source if in the context of a passage. It is not a re-telling of a biblical event or
relating different verses (using a concordance)--the different contexts must be
considered. It is not about the Bible
where the focus is what the text says.
Rather, expository preaching is preaching from the Bible to the people. Ask not only what did the verse mean; ask
what does it mean.
1/17/96:
Lecture
On
Psalm 51: consider other psalms like it, the structure of ps. 51, the themes in
ps. 51. What is the concept of
person? What is the concept of God? What does the psalm mean to me. Does it
address my own situation. Does it
address my audience (the congregation)?
Expository
Preaching: What does it mean?
The Biblical Sermon: Used biblically, it not
telling people what is in the Bible or what it means, but is telling the people
what it could mean to them. Adams : preaching is sacramental: an instrument to bring
God's grace to the people. It is an
event in the relationship between God and His people. The preacher's task is to make the word that
was spoken then word that is spoken now.
One should not have something to say and then go to Scripture because it
takes Scripture without its context or as a depository of sacred truth or a
law-book, both of which it is not. A
text of Scripture is dealing with a particular witness. The content and purpose and organization of
the sermon should reflect the context, content, purpose, and organization of
the text. The tone and genre of the text
ought to be reflected in how the text is used.
The mood of the text ought to be reflected in the mood of the sermon. Don't give the Beatitudes as laws. Has the sermon explored the full potential of
the text? Let the text be heard in its
full potential. Look at its
struture--why structured so. Look at the
surrounding text. Also, look at the mood
of Scripture. Adams :
it is mostly not of command (mandating what people should do), although it is
so in some points and so such a sermon should be given occasionally when called
for. The dominant mood of the Bible is
grace: what God is. There is an implied
imperative in this. So, let people know
what the result are to certain things, rather than telling them what to
do. Who am I to tell others what they
should do? But sometimes it is
appropriate. But exortation is not an
effective way to get people to change their behavior. Call people to be what God wants them. Use imperative indirectly as is the case in
most of the Bible. For instance, there
is an implied imparative in the Beatitudes.
The
questions in an expository sermon: What
do the words mean in the text? This is
exegesis. But don't have a sermon which
is an exegesis paper. Exegesis is an
art, rather than a technique. Use the
techniques to let my own imagination and insight figure out the meaning of the
text in its setting. What would it be
like to be a Corinthian listening to one of Paul's letters? There is no 'correct answer' to what it would
be like, so there is no correct answer to what the texts means. Commentaries are most useful in keeping us
from erring (misreading the text), rather than in giving the right answer. Commentaries disagree. Read the text in several translations. Every
translation is an interpretation. Find
the limits in the use of the text.
Consider the form of the passage and the text around it. Look at the internal consistency in the
text.
The
second task is to ask what is the situation of the congregation. Consider the time of year, what is happening
in the world, Union , State, and town. What is happening in the people's lives. Prepare a sermon for some particular people
or a particular person. Think about the
people. What could I say to them that
would tell them what it is to be of God in their lives? How would I talk to them? What words can I use? What would the text that I am using mean to
them?
The
third question: what are ways of making the move from the text to the people?
1/19/96:
Lecture
Putting
a Sermon Together:
It
is not a mechanical process. Decide what
I'm going to preach about. Consider: the
condition of the congregation as well as questions that have been asked by
members. Calvin preached through a book
of the Bible. Some traditions preach
from a lectionary. Some preach from the
Spirit directly. In this course, we are
preaching from a text.
From
a text, read it and reflect about it. Let it speak to me; what does it mean to
me and to my relationship to God. Do
exegesis. Also, get a theme or focus.
This may come before or after doing exegesis. For instance, I don't have to
preach on everything in a given reading.
Perhaps write a theme statement. Don't preach on a noun. A theme has to have a verb. For instance, a sermon on sin is not
sufficient; what are people to do with it?
For instance, 'God forgives those who turn away from sin and
repent'. This still too broad. Narrow the focus. The theme answers the question 'what' do I
want to say--focus is on the content. A purpose
statement answers the 'why' question.
What do I want to have happen.
The focus here is on the people.
This is not of what I want to do. I am more conserned with
'understanding' as a academic, but preaching is much more than that. Rather, consider what I want to have happen
to the people. Why do I want them to
understand something? So that they will
be able make confession on what is really about what is destroying their
lives? Change not just ideas, but
identity, relationships, and behavior. The theme and purpose should be known by me,
but may remain implicit in the sermon.
They may come out through story, for instance, in the sermon.
There
is in this the risk of manipulation. The
purpose of preaching is not to make anyone do anything. Rather, it is to confront people with the
Gospel so they can respond to it. Sometimes people respond instead to the
personality of the preacher or to the entertainment. The preacher has the obligation of putting
the Gospel in front. So, those with a
negative reaction would be rejecting the Gospel rather than me. I am called upon to present the Gospel and
show what a positive response to it could be.
This is not telling them that they should do something.
Jot
down ideas on paper. Anything that comes to mind. No structure to it. Don't filter it. Don't ask why an idea came to mind. Free association. Things I have read or heard. Things I have thought about. Then, there needs to be time for
rumination. Give it time to roll around
in my head, after doing the above. Look
for things I am seeing during that time that I wouldn't otherwise see.
Then,
get a structure for the sermon. What is
the journey through this material. What
do I want to start and end with? What
moves do I want to make? How can I make
the transitions. It can be a logical,
emotional, narrative, or poetic pattern.
Even if the sermon is based on a text, it need not begin with the text;
it can begin on the people. Look at the
text to see if I want to end with the text.
If used at the end, the text should speak differently than it did when
read earlier in the liturgy, such that it comes to speak with power.
Then,
a manuscript or note could be used as a tool of preparation and/or in the
sermon.
1/22/96:
Lecture
Psalm
51:
What kind of Psalm is it? It is a person praying. It involves both communal and personal
elements. It is one of seven penitent
psalms: 6, 32, 38, 102, 130, 143. Some
call for penitence to be done, others like 51 are of someone being
penitent.
What is the setting? The prophet Nathan had come to David after he
had been with Bathsheba in adultary.
Nathan had told him a story, rather than accusing David or telling him
that he was bad. David agrees that the
rich man of the story deserved to die. Then, Nathan told David that he is the
man of the story. David confesses.
Did
David write the poem? Having a broken
spirit as penitent is of a later time.
But, the first part of the psalm fits with David's situation.
If it pertains to David, can I use it?
Anchor it in David's story, err on the side of specificity (not everyone has
committed adultary). Also, generalize
it: who has not transgressed another person.
The message: you pay a heavy price if you transgress another.
There
are seventy-two psalms attributed to or given to David. This does not imply that they were all
written by David.
What is the structure of Psalm 51? How can it be divided? There are many ways. One of which is:
1-2:
Plea for mercy: What is the nature of God?
Of mercy. Of goodness and
steadfast love. What is the nature of
mercy? Undeserved. Where does one see such mercy? A parent for his or her child.
3-6:
Confession: What are the nuances in the
description of what David has done.
Transgression: suggests a violation of what is proper and right (it
wasn't just an accident). Sin: missing
the mark. It is a violation of not just
a divine decree but of the divine cosmos itself. A sin against another person is thus a sin
against God. These are of our relation to God.
7-12:
Prayer for forgiveness: To blot out; to be erased.
13-15:
Vow
16-17:
Need for pentitence as a necessary offering
18-19:
a later addition.
There
is a clear sense of movement--that one thing leads to another. Counting on the
nature of God, the nature of his relation to God is known as that of a
tressgressor before undeserved mercy.
Sermon
applications: One could consider the dynamics of how one breaks with God. What of the text resonates with me? Is the audience shattered and in despair? Is it in self-righteousness? Different meanings and responses would come
from these contexts of the audience.
David claims to know his transgressions; how can a modern congregant who
feels he has done nothing in particular wrong, at least not murder of an
innocent man?
1/24/96:
Lecture
Psalm
51:
The
confessional passage shows how it consumes him.
He acknowleges that God is justified in his judgment of him. Man sins and therefore God is justified in
judging us. In placing judgment in a
prophetic role as preacher, stand with the congregation in judgment, rather
than over against them. Preach words of
judgment with compassion. Consider:
these people are destroying themselves because of their sin. This is not to say that mere suggestions
ought to be made; rather, take the particular stance of Scripture, even though
some may take offense. It is easier to
detect what is wrong than to show the presence of God in the midst of
this. Tell the congregation how we can
get out. How we can have God's presence
amidst our sin? Verse 5: don't use past
or present situation as an excuse so as to avoid responsibility for one's
sins.
Verses
6-12: v. 6: what does God want?
Truthfulness, fidelity, wisdom(fear of the Lord). It effects one in one's very being. Then, there is a series of negative-positive
petitions: being purged of and being forgiven are not sufficient; there has to
come a new creation. It is not merely
doing good, but being good. He appeals
for joy and happiness, as coming out of a right relationship with God. Three references to spirit in this
psalm. 'Holy Spirit' (see Is. 53) is
used rarely in the O.T. It is here
considered as a principle within man but given by God of moral and religious
activity. See Ps 143.10, Ws 1.5; 9.17
applied to individuals. See Is 63.11, Hg
2:5, and Ne 9.20 applied to a group of people (i.e. a nation).
Can
the O.T. be preached? Ps 51 has many
connections to the Christian message. For instance, of promise and forgiveness.
Should the psalm be used as a preamble.
Does the psalmist offer promise that can be heard in his own psalm or
must Jesus be brought in? Harry Adams: A
sermon in a Christian church can be done on the O.T. without reference to
Jesus. There is an integrity to it. So, don't feel under compulsion to add Jesus
to it. Respect the O.T.'s own authenticity.
1/26/96:
Lecture
In
the sermon manuscript to be handed in, state the audience intended and the
verses that the sermon is using.
Expository preaching deals with a certain text (passages therein).
In
delivering a sermon in class, tell the class who I am addressing. Then, read the text of the Bible
passage. Use the pulpit. I can wear vestments. After the sermon, we will go down to Rm. 203
to discuss the sermon. We won't begin
with critique; rather, someone will tell what he heard. What was the message? What really came through? What point really came through? Was I distracted? If so, tell so. Was my mind wandering? If so, it is the preacher's fault. This is a burden of preaching. Criticism is not necessarily negative. As the listener, consider: how did the
preacher use the text? Was the text
really informing or authorizing what the preacher was saying? A function of how the text is used. How the sermon grows out of the text?
How
was the sermon embodied in the congregation?
Was the language appropriate for it?
Use technical language with caution, and if so, explain it and relate it
to the real lives of the people. Was the
sermon incarnate? Take the incarnation
seriously; God is in the world in people, embodied in life. So too, a sermon should be embodied in
life. For instance, what does 'someone
with a pure heart' look like? Is the
sermon really for these people?
Was
the sermon clear? Did it move well? How strong were the transitions? They need not be made explicit. Further, the structure of the sermon need not
be explicitly stated, but there should be some structure. But, what if it is extemporaneous? Were there too many or too few images in the
sermon?
How
did the sermon open? It need not be a section, but every sermon must have a
first sentence. The first sentence is
important. It should get people's
attention and lead into the sermon. Use
the theme sentence, or begin with the text, or use humor when it fits the
sermon and is genuine rather than in trying to deal with nervousness. Humor is less necessary in Preaching than in
other forms of public communication.
How
did the sermon end? It needs to be
written and delivered in a way that shows that it is the last sentence. Some way distinct. A different tone or
pace. An emphatic statement. A profound
one. One that leaves the people with a
question. Don't add two paragraphs
behind the ending sentence.
Was
the sermon balanced in its delivery?
Analysis and affirmation; positive and negative; appropriate use of the
text. There also needs to be a
development of ideas and of emotion in the sermon. What is the sense of movement of the
preacher's emotions as well as of those of the listeners? Could the people
hear? It is not only sheer volume;
sometimes talking louder increases one's pitch.
This may go well for some preachers.
Rather, it is the ability to assert one's self in getting the attention
of the audience that is importance here.
On nerviousness, breathe heavily from the diaphram before the delivery
helps. Also, realize that God's Spirit
is what is really at work; trust in that.
Have confidence and trust in their relation to the congregation. Show a compassion in mannerisms and ways of
speaking. Watch nervious reactions, such
as putting a hand in a pocket. Gestures:
they should be those that come naturally, but keep watch of repetitive quirks
that can distract listeners.
2/5/96:
Lecture
Lk.
24:
It
is a passage for an Easter sermon. The
Easter congregation is unique: more people.
A difficult congregation to preach to, because it is not only the
regular believing group, but folks who are there for cultural reasons. So, be careful with doctrine and theological
words. Don't be apologetic; rather, be
affirmative--the mode of witness.
On
the passage itself: don'tr try to preach the whole chapter. Three to five major movements in it. Take one.
First (1-12: the women at the tomb--and possibly Peter): is it a later
addition. Then, ch.s 13-35: the Amaus
story. Then, Jesus appearing before the
disciples (up to ch. 43) and he talks with them and gives them the commandment
to witness (up to 49) and then Jesus leaves them and ascends to heaven.
1
Cor. 13: about the appearances as the foundation of believing in the
resurrection; no reference to the empty tomb.
On the Gospels: following Mk., they all begin with the empty tomb. In no place in the Canonical Scripture is the
resurrection itself described. There are
appearances of a risen Christ, however. The appearances came to those who did
not expect it. So, it was not from
expectations. The reports were rejected
or questioned initially, so it was not a cause of rejoicing. In some cases, they were just confused. The stories in the Gospels begin with the
visit of the women, with the stone as the first signs. Men or Angels were then seen. Then, Jesus was seen at various times by
various witnesses. They resulted in the conviction that Jesus had risen.
Beyond
this, the stories differ. Lk., unlike
Mk., the story took place in Jerusalem . They came out of different traditions. Lk. represents the Jerusalem tradition. Mk. represents the Galelian tradition.
What
is the 'good news' that is to be proclaimed?
On what basis am I able to proclaim the faith? Jesus' ministry had then been vindicated. Or, one could base it in seeing Jesus as the
beginning of the eschaton. Or, in the
fulfilling of the Scriptures then (see the prophesy of Isaiah). Or, in the dying to flesh, rising to the
spirit.
Let
the specificity of each gospel speak to us when we are preaching. Different takes on Easter.
Lk.
24:1-12: 'Why do you look for the living
among the dead?' Are people today trying
to find meaning in things that are dead and leave them dead? Inside the tomb, they don't see a body. The resurrection isn't seen. Two men of bright robes; the women are
scared. Meaning: don't explain the
resurrection in terms of the normal pattern by which people live their lives. 'Why don't you remember what he told you?': a
theme. Who are the sinful men? Probably gentiles. That the women shared what had happened to
them is not to say that they believed it.
The disciples did not believe them.
What could one preach from this?
On witness. The difficulty of
having faith. The importance of being
prepared for the second coming. On how
difficult it is to have faith such that one would love his ememies and turn the
other cheek. It takes faith that this is
a strength thus vindicated in one's own faith, when one would want to do
otherwise.
Why
would this seem to people today to be an idle tale? The hypocricy in the church. So why believe the doctrine when those who do
are mean? It stands outside our ordinary
experience. How can the sermon do to
help people to take seriously the affirmation of the resurrection witness
(rather than to believe it)?
The
theme statement is not 'resurrection', but is what I'm going to say about
it. The purpose regards what I want to
have happen in the congregation.
2/7/96:
Lecture
Lk.
24:
From
the Gospel of Peter, the resurrection is described. The stone moved itself. Two young man went in and brought out Jesus,
and led him to heaven. The canonical
Gospels do not give a description of the resurrection.
In
Lk. evidence is offered of the resurrection: witnesses who saw the risen Jesus,
the empty tomb, prophesy fulfillment, an angelic appearance, and the breaking
of the bread. Which was decisive? Lk. seems to imply that there is not a
decisive elements. Lk. emphasizes the
fullfilment of O.T. prophesy.
What
is the nature or character of the risen Jesus?
A fleshly character. He is not
disembodied spirit. He ate fish. But it
was a different form of flesh from the ordinary in the way he appears and
disappears. He seems to be known more by
his actions and words than by his appearance.
He is an exalted figure for Luke.
So, what is Luke saying about resurrection? He would be speaking against the Gnostics.
Paul:'spiritual body'. He is trying to
communicate that it was not a resussitation--against the position of the
Ebionists. So, Luke may have been using
these metaphysical strands that give rise to factions in a way to practice what
Jesus taught: unity and peace. Using
metaphysical material would make sense in this endeavor, as it was differences
over the metaphysics that seems to have given rise to the eventual factions--in
Luke's time, perhaps just arguments.
Luke as a peace-maker.
What
response is called for? Witness,
breaking of the bread in remembrance of Jesus, faith, joy and a sense of
vindication.
How
is one to preach about this?
2/26/96:
Seitz Lecture
The
effect of context on exegesis and preaching:
The
literary context of the text has import for the meaning of the text. For instance, if you read Gen. 2, the issues
there arise out of Gen 1 and are in Gen. 3.
Assp: a unifying thrust of the text.
Until the Enlightenment, this was assumed. In addition, a particular chapter can be
isolated and relate it to other texts so as to establish the source. Texts as genred, whose relation to the
neighboring literary context is secondary.
There is also the interbiblical context: how a given text engenders
another text in Scripture. Texts have
the capacity to engender new texts, as the Hebrew scripture engendered the New
Testament. For instance, how is the fall
a relevant concept in the Hebrew Scripture?
Paul assumes that it is. Themes
in one text give rise to different usages in other contexts. Is the eschatology of the N.T. a return to
the garden, or instance? The extent of
human deprivity: that one could be
sinless was possible in Hebrew scriptures but not in the N.T. An independence of a word that can engender a
new meaning. Another example: what
happens when a text is read according to
a lectionary. Import of liturgical
year. Impact of hearing bits of texts. Who invented the lectionary, according to what
principle, and should we follow it? What
is the relationship between the two testaments?
From the bad to the good?
Dialectical? What is the glue
that keeps them together. Letting one line illuminate a lot is a
context too. The preacher and his
listeners have their own context.
We
all put these contexts in a balance.
Also consider the nuances of a particular culture. Slang, for instance.
So,
think through how a text sits and is brought into a context.
Gen
3:
How
does it fit between ch.s 1 and 3? Were
they independent accounts that were subsequently related? Stylistic differences between 1 and 2. From a transcendent portrayal of God to a
view of God in human terms. Different
writers? Priestly and Yahwist
writers. Are the stories meant to be
sequential or incompatible or neither or both?
Adjuctive? Parenthetical? The
texts are interdependent and yet independent.
Is compatibility to be sought? Is
it normative? If it is now (e.g. thus
to be sought in preaching) but was not to necessarily to the writers, how can
the preacher do what his listeners want to know while being fair to the writers
of the text? One can use a developmental
rationalistic explanation (an appeal to what is not given in the text to
explain it), but this is to resolve the
tension artificially. Why not let the
tension remain? Critical theory has
emphasized the independence of a textual passage, but this could lead to
artifical remedies of commonality from over-stressing the differences.
Is
primeval history 'before' temporally or is it meant figuratively? Do the stories use a form of presentation to
transcend temporality. If it is taken
literally, what is lost?
2/28/96:
Seitz Lecture
Gen
3:
Gen.
2 and 3 is the first story in which humans are involved: the relationship
between God and Man. A serious theological claim. There had been alternatives in antiquity on
how things began and why there is suffering.
The Stoic view: we are to blame for the way of the world but we can
repair it. The snake is used in Gen. 3 to refute this. Evil was here before it was in us. Another option: it is due to the fighting
among the gods. Images used in Gen. were
generally available: the garden, for instance.
How
does the writer provide a mix from these alternatives. Trees: three types in
ch. 2. Generic trees that have good looks and have eatable fruit, The tree of
life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of good and evil. God commands Adam and Eve not to eat from the
tree of good and evil or you will die on the day you eat of it. Why not the tree of life? How literal was
this meant? If literal, the snake was
right. God was in fact fooling humanity.
See Barr. Romans 5 took this
wrong: death did not in fact come through one man. Barr wants to say that the N.T.
misunderstands Gen. 3. Issue: how much
elasticity is there in a text? Modern
interpretors seek single meanings but there may be several meaning--but this
does not mean that Romans 5 interpretation is within the elasticity of meanings
that can legitimately be taken from the text. Also, the N.T. interpretation
that Eve introduced sin that is passed down is not of the literal sense of the
Gen. text. But other Hebrew texts say
that everyone has sin. But does not necessarily mean that the sin was from Eve
(a Fall) rather than being so from man's origins. But Gen. 3 can be taken figuratively that
when Eve first disobeyed God, she 'fell' and being caste out of the garden
meaning that the effects of her sin would pass on to succeeding generations.
But that such generations suffer from her sin is not necessarily to mean that
those generations also have had her sin.
They could be in a deprived place due to her behavior/choice, but not
make the choice which she did(i.e. not having her sin). Also, Barr claims that
God did not want his creation to be the same as God. Or, is it to mean that immortality will be
lost--but there is a way of saying this which is not said here. But because God
did not prohibit Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life in ch. 2 but
took them out of the garden in ch. 3 to keep them from eating it, does this not
imply that Adam and Eve were created immortal and lost it in God's
judgment? We don't know if Adam and Eve
were originally mortal or immortal. There are contingent and finite aspects in
the garden. The story leaves open the
possibility that there is a distinction between existential death in life
itself (growing old) and mortality. At
the end of the story, Adam and Eve know that the tree of life was a foresaken
choice. You can't have life and get
knowledge by going against God. In Ch.
3, the tree is said to be in the midst of the garden. It results in them
knowing good and evil; no mention of the tree of life. But at the end of ch. 3, God takes them out
of the garden so they won't eat of the tree of life. It could be that there was a redactioinal
development on what kind of trees there were.
How are the gaps to be overcome? The reader and narrator know of the
trees, but Adam and Eve don't. How does
the serpant know this? How does Eve know
what she knows before eating the apple.
That she might not have known does not absolve her of
responsibility. Who is the omniscient
narrator? How he know how what he does?
Why is there a serpent that is
crafty? Gaps in creation are not due to
fights between gods. Ch.
3: communication breaks down, certain choices were not made that could have
been. The point of the story: knowledge is done by asking God; trust in God's
commandment. It has a wisdom type of
narrative.
3/25/96:
Malherbe Lecture
1
Cor. 12:
Paul
established that church in 51 and wrote this letter in the mid-fifties. He had written a first letter that they had
misinterpreted. So this letter here is
one of several. This letter is particular to the issues at Corinth . Cloe and others informed Paul about that
church. That church wrote to Paul
too. Paul was at Ephasis, not far from Corinth . So, Paul didn't have to mention the general
conditions. Ch. 12 is a response to a
letter from that church: 'Now concerning...(a specific matter). Paul is not writing in the abstract but to
practical concerns.
For
homological purposes, think about the situation of the church. Paul wrote the letter knowing that it would
be read to the church--he is preaching the letter in writing it. What did he know of that church. For instance, 1 Cor. 1.26: some church
members were of nobility. Christianity
is not only for the disenfrachized. So,
that church was socially stratified. It was a diversified urban church. Most members were not educated or had
money. But the minority of nobility held
disproportionate influence for Paul. For
instance, Erasmus--a city manager, was a member. Gaius hosted Paul and let the church meet in
his house, so he was rich. The first
church building that we know of dates at 251.
It was a house with walls knocked out.
In the fifties, it would have been a house and they would have met in a
room--so not large groups. Maybe twenty.
So,
a church meeting in a regular room of a house--with people of different strata,
so relations in the church were important to Paul. A church is constantly in motion in a society
that is transient. A necessity to
constantly work on relationships.
Fourteen
individuals (or groups) mentioned by Paul in his letters, nine of which were at
Corinth . Social divisions: the haves and the have-nots
vis a vis the eating. Nothing in ! Cor. shows difference in theology within the
church there. He was concerned with
their behavior: eating meat from idols, sexual morality. So, the struggle between Paul and Apollus
did not differ in theology. Paul uses
theological doctrine to comment on their behavior. For instance, he notes envy ans strife among
them. The reason for this, he wrote, is because the kingdom of God
Paul
is creative with theological doctrines--he never translates them into practical
application. So, freedom. He was accused
of being too open. Not starting from a
theological doctrine (but creating one instead) and giving his argument from
it, his genuine letters did not give rise to theological disputes in the
churches. The early Church fathers later
began with particular doctrines of others and gave practical applications, thus
stimulating theological disputes. The
key: don't start with a pre-existing doctrine and don't give a practical
application (or limits thereof) from even one's own doctrine.
On
the hetergenious nature of the Roman household--it included the slaves. The State was seen as of the households. The household was looked to as the social
unit where responsibility layed. Unity
in the household(shown by behavour) would give rise to unity in the
society. So, heterogenity was widespread
within the empire. Law, language, money
and highways were indications of the unity of the empire. But, different kinds of pebbles are in a jar
is not really that they are united. To
some extent, there was a top-down kind of unity. But there is something more
than a command from the top to give rise to unity. Namely, everyone has a particular job which
is needed. The dynamic aspect of unity
was described in terms of the human body: the body is healthy when every part
works.
4/8/96:
Malherbe Lecture
Lk.
16:1-17:
Setting
in Lk.: a series of parables. Three in
ch. 15.
Audience
intended: disciples and pharisees.
Textual
analysis: How does this parable relate to the parables in ch. 15? The idea of losing and finding one's relation
with God. Ch. 16, in relation to riches. When is the end of the parable at the beginning
of ch. 16? vv. 1-8.
What
is the story itself? It is not the dishonesty that is commended, but the
shrewdness. The steward managed the rich
man's finances. A guy in a responsible position, entrusted with the management
of the finances. Typical at that time
that the management of property would be turned over. Someone snitched on the steward--that he was
squandering or wasting his goods. The
master told him that he had heard something about him. The steward did not deny the charge, but
stayed silent. The master took this as a
confession and fired him. The steward
knew there was to be a judgment; he simply accepted it. The steward then thinks--what can I
do... He has an idea. He wants to be received by someone else, so
he brought in the debtors one by one. He
wanted the tenants to know that he was doing them a favor. He is cheating the master so he can have a
place to go. It is possible that the
steward was cutting out his own part of the payment rather than cheating the
master. The master then commended his
wise operation. Would he have done this
if the steward had cheated him. Is the relation between the master and the
steward like that between God and us.
The master judged and yet was merciful and accepted the way the steward
was handling it. The steward did not
make excuses or beg for mercy. He did something right. Parallel to the prodical son. The reduced bill puts the master in a funny
position: he benefits. So, there are
several ways to read it. How bad was the
steward. Imp.: the listener's view of
human nature.
What
other bad characters does Jesus use in scripture? The unjust judge. The man who find a treasure and bought the
field. Jesus uses bad characters to make
points.
4/10/96:
Malherbe Lecture
Lk.
16:1-17:
The
steward's shrewdness was praised by the master. Specifically, it was the steward's move to
reduce the bills of the debtors, taking out his own cut so he could get a job
later. Long-term strategy.
The
parable itself ends at 8a. 8b is a
generalization. see Mt.
v. 9
is a connection; the parable itself wouldn't necessary lead to this. For Lk., dealing with money is a matter of
concern. Unrighteous stances toward
money are thus particularly abhorant to Lk.
What are the differences between the steward and the possessor referred
to in v. 9? The master-servant relation and thus struggle drops out. Also, the possessor is not designated as
dishonest. Also, the steward has no
money of his own, whereas the possessor does.
The issue for the latter is how to use it. The motif shared with the steward: one is
supposed to use money to make friends.
What is a shrewd use of money by a Christian? Using leverage. Beating someone out of something. Finding a sense of security and identity in
it. Finding success in money. Materialism.
Presumably from v. 9: a Christian should use money to make friends. Money is assumed to fail. Is there any good use or possesion of money
to Luke? Probably not. The rich man should give away his money. It is in the relationships that can be
created by the use of money can effect one's eternal destiny. Eternal habitations. Taken care of not just in worldly terms.
vv.
10-12: three antitheses. What does it
mean to be shrewd about the use of money?
Christians had to deal with money. v. 10: money doesn't really count for
much. If you are shrewd with money, you
can be shrewd with matters of eternity.
v. 11: If you don't use bad (illbegotten wealth) for good, then how can
you use that of eternity for better. v.
12: money doesn't belong to us. If you
can't handle what belongs to another, how can you handle what is your own(relationships,
life in the spirit, faith)?
Think
of Jimmy Stewart and Mr. Potter in Its a
Wonderful Life.
v.
13 is like Mt. 24: serve is the operative word here. Serve money or God. Two masters.
v.
14: a slur against the Pharisees. They
were committed to ways of the law. The
Pharisees had scoffed at Jesus in Ch. 15 for eating with tax collectors. Does money have a status for folks? The shrewd use of money should not be used to
gain the approval of people.
