MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

La Revue Internet Des Pasteurs, Fre Ed 44, Edition du l’été 2022

Un ministère de…

Auteur: Dr. Roger Pascoe, Président,
Email: [email protected]

I. Renforcement De La Prédication Par Exposition :
Prêcher Les Evangiles Du N.T, Pt. 3, Les Paraboles

Les paraboles ne sont pas exclusives aux Evangiles. Nathan, par exemple, a utilisé une parabole pour alerter David de son péché (2 Sam. 12 :1-10). Ésaïe a utilisé une parabole pour accuser la maison d’Israël (És. 5 :1-7. Notez que la parabole se trouve dans Ésaïe 5 :1-6 et l’application dans És. 5 :7). Cependant, pour les besoins de cet article, je traiterai des paraboles comme un sous-genre de “l’évangile”.

1. Définition et structure des paraboles. Une parabole est une courte histoire dans laquelle certaines expériences et certains personnages représentent certaines vérités morales ou spirituelles. Jésus utilisait fréquemment des paraboles pour faire valoir un point. En règle générale, une parabole commence par décrire des événements ou des personnages dans une situation particulière et se termine par une application directe ou une explication de l’histoire, de sorte que les auditeurs reconnaissent sa pertinence dans leur vie. C’est pourquoi vous trouvez souvent de fortes réactions négatives aux paraboles de Jésus, car elles touchent la conscience des auditeurs.

2. Formes littéraires des paraboles. En termes simples, une parabole est une forme de langage figuratif. Permettez-moi de faire les distinctions suivantes …

(1) Les “vraies” paraboles. Par “vraies” paraboles, j’entends des paraboles qui suivent la structure et la définition que j’ai décrites ci-dessus. Des exemples de « vraies » paraboles sont : (1) Le bon Samaritain (Lc. 10 :25-37) ; (2) La brebis perdue, la pièce perdue et le fils perdu (Lc. 15 :1-32) ; (3) Le grand souper (Lc. 14 :15-24) ; (4) Les ouvriers de la vigne (Matt. 20 :1-16) ; (5) L’homme riche et Lazare (Lc. 16 :19-31) ; (6) Les dix vierges (Matt. 25 :1-13).

(2) Comparaisons. Certaines paraboles prennent la forme de comparaisons étendues où le sujet et la chose avec laquelle il est comparé sont distincts l’un de l’autre et rendus explicites en utilisant des comparaisons telles que “comme” ou “comme” - par ex. « Le royaume des cieux est comme… » (Matt. 13 :44-46). Des exemples de paraboles sous forme de comparaisons étendues sont : (1) Le levain dans la farine (Matt. 13 :33) ; (2) Le semeur (Matt. 13 :1-23) ; (3) La graine de moutarde (Matt. 13 :31-32).

(3) Métaphores. Certaines paraboles ont des caractéristiques d’une métaphore étendue, dans laquelle, contrairement à une comparaison étendue, la comparaison entre le sujet et la chose à laquelle il est comparé est implicite et inséparable - par ex. « Vous êtes le sel de la terre… Vous êtes la lumière du monde “(Matt. 5 :13-14). Bien que l’on puisse soutenir que de telles déclarations ne sont que des métaphores (et ce serait vrai), néanmoins, dans le contexte dans lequel elles sont utilisées, je pense qu’il est juste de classer certaines comme ayant des caractéristiques paraboliques dans leur structure et leur objectif.

3. Le but des paraboles. Malgré l’apparente simplicité de la forme et du contenu de la parabole, il y a eu beaucoup de débats sur leur signification. Et en effet, il y a des paraboles difficiles à comprendre, comme la parabole du chef d’entreprise malhonnête (Lc 16, 1-13). Nous lisons une histoire comme celle-là et nous nous demandons : “Qu’est-ce que Jésus voulait dire exactement ? Loue-t-il vraiment la malhonnêteté de l’homme ? Ou, y a-t-il plus dans cette histoire qu’il n’y paraît au départ ? “Même les disciples eux-mêmes se sont demandé ce que signifiaient certaines des paraboles de Jésus (M.c 4 :10 ; L.c 8 :9).

Malheureusement, l’explication de Jésus sur la signification des paraboles est elle-même une déclaration difficile à comprendre : “C’est à vous qu’a été donné le mystère du royaume de Dieu; mais pour ceux qui sont dehors tout se passe en paraboles, afin qu’en voyant ils voient et n’aperçoivent point, et qu’en entendant ils entendent et ne comprennent point, de peur qu’ils ne se convertissent, et que les péchés ne leur soient pardonnés. “(M.c 4 :11-12 ; citant És. 6 :9-10). Bien que cette déclaration n’implique pas nécessairement que c’était le but de toutes les paraboles de Jésus, cela explique pourquoi il a utilisé certaines paraboles pour présenter le secret divin concernant la nature du royaume de Dieu, un secret dont la signification est révélée à ceux qui ont la divinité. La vie mais retenu à ceux qui refusent catégoriquement la vérité.

Peut-être que l’explication de Jésus est mieux comprise dans le contexte où son ministère a eu deux effets diamétralement opposés. Comme le dit l’apôtre Paul, pour certains auditeurs, le message de Jésus dans les paraboles était « une odeur de vie donnant la vie », mais pour d’autres, il était « une odeur de mort donnant la mort “(2 Cor. 2 :14-16). Ou, comme le dit l’apôtre Pierre, car pour “vous qui croyez”, Jésus est présenté dans les paraboles comme « la pierre qu’ont rejetée ceux qui bâtissaient - qui est devenue la principale de l’angle », mais pour les incroyants, il est « une pierre d’achoppement, et un rocher de scandale » (1 Pi. 2 :7-8). En d’autres termes, les paraboles de Jésus forçaient les gens à prendre parti. Vous étiez soit pour lui, soit contre lui. C’était clairement l’effet de nombreuses paraboles - elles ont divisé le peuple et, ce faisant, ont révélé la vérité de leur cœur. Comme le souligne Moises Silva, « Les paraboles… lorsqu’elles s’adressent à ceux qui se sont opposés au Seigneur, deviennent des instruments de jugement. Ainsi, ‘celui qui a recevra plus ; à celui qui n’a pas, même ce qu’il a lui sera ôté » (Mc. 4, 25). (Silva, Une introduction à l’herméneutique biblique, 111).

Les paraboles servent donc à discriminer entre ceux qui ont entendu Jésus - d’une part pour obscurcir la vérité de ceux qui ont rejeté ses paroles, et d’autre part pour clarifier la vérité pour ceux qui ont répondu positivement à ses paroles. Pour ceux qui ont répondu positivement à ses paroles, les paraboles de Jésus ont révélé Dieu, sa vérité et ses desseins pour son peuple. Pour ceux qui ont rejeté Jésus et ses paroles, les paraboles ont été utilisées par Jésus comme des instruments de jugement et un moyen de leur cacher la vérité (par exemple, Matt. 13 : 10-15 ; Mc. 4 : 11-12 ; Lc. 8 : 9 -dix). Comme le dit Henry Virkler : « Les mêmes paraboles qui éclairaient les croyants fidèles étaient sans signification pour ceux qui endurcissaient leur cœur contre la vérité » (Virkler, Hermeneutics, 165). Il s’agit d’un enseignement similaire à 1 Corinthiens 2 concernant la capacité de la personne régénérée à comprendre la vérité spirituelle par rapport à l’incapacité de la personne non régénérée. La différence est que l’un a la vue spirituelle et l’autre est spirituellement aveugle. Ainsi, les paraboles ont deux objectifs, ou points focaux - d’abord pour les croyants et ensuite pour les non-croyants.

Le but des paraboles est double : (1) instruire les auditeurs sur les vérités spirituelles telles que la prière, le don, etc. (par exemple, Matt. 13 : 10-12 ; Mc. Une vie inappropriée, pécheresse ou hypocrite (par exemple, Lc. 7 : 36-50). En général, le but des paraboles est de révéler la vérité sur le caractère et l’identité des auditeurs - qui et ce qu’ils sont.

4. La nature des paraboles. Probablement la caractéristique des paraboles qui explique pourquoi Jésus les a tant utilisées dans son enseignement est qu’il s’agissait de simples histoires intéressantes sur la vie quotidienne, que les gens ordinaires pouvaient comprendre, auxquelles ils pouvaient s’identifier et dont ils pouvaient apprendre.

Par conséquent, les paraboles révèlent, clarifient, soulignent et appliquent la vérité spirituelle à la fois au cœur et à la conscience. La nature des paraboles est telle qu’elles font une impression sur les esprits et les consciences des gens ; ce qui est beaucoup plus dramatique, efficace et durable que de simplement énoncer un sujet - par ex. la veuve persistante et le juge injuste (Lc 18 :1-8), ou le pharisien et le publicain (Lc. 18 :9-14).

La nature des paraboles est donc qu’il s’agit de courtes histoires réalistes sur des situations, des personnes et des événements familiers qui comparent une situation, une personne ou un événement à un autre afin d’illustrer, d’éclairer et d’enseigner une situation non familière ou inconnue qui est pourtant une vérité spirituelle importante. De par leur nature, les paraboles sont indirectes et exigent une réponse des auditeurs

5. Comprendre et interpréter les paraboles. La parabole est le message. Elle est dite afin de s’adresser aux auditeurs et de les captiver, de les informer de leurs propres actions ou de les amener à répondre d’une manière ou d’une autre à Jésus et à son ministère. C’est cette caractéristique qui rend l’interprétation des paraboles difficile, parce que c’est un peu comme interpréter une blague - si vous devez l’interpréter, elle n’est pas drôle et intuitivement évidente. Comme pour l’attrait immédiat d’une blague, les auditeurs de paraboles auraient eu une identification immédiate avec les points de référence qui les ont amenés à comprendre le sens de la parabole.

Étant donné que nous pouvons peut-être ne pas comprenons immédiatement le sujet en raison de notre distance par rapport au temps, à la culture et au langage des paraboles, elles ne fonctionnent pas tout à fait de la même manière pour nous que pour les auditeurs originaux. Cependant, en interprétant correctement les paraboles, nous pouvons comprendre ce qu’ils ont compris.

Généralement, l’interprétation et l’application de l’histoire viennent à la fin de la parabole et sont distinctes de l’histoire elle-même. Par exemple, dans Luc 7 :40-42, les trois points de référence sont : le prêteur et les deux débiteurs. L’identification est immédiate : (1) Dieu est comme le prêteur d’argent ; (2) la prostituée et Simon sont comme les deux débiteurs. La parabole est une parole de jugement appelant à une réponse de Simon. La force de la parabole est telle que Simon ne pouvait pas passer à côté. Il convient de noter que les points de référence eux-mêmes ne constituent pas la parabole. Ils ne servent qu’à attirer les auditeurs dans l’histoire et à fournir un point de référence avec lequel ils sont identifiés. Le point de l’histoire est dans la réponse souhaitée. Dans ce cas, c’est un mot de jugement à Simon et ses amis et un mot d’acceptation et de pardon à la femme.

Rappelez-vous que toutes les paraboles de Jésus sont, d’une certaine manière, les moyens que Jésus a choisis pour décrire et proclamer le royaume. Par conséquent, nous devons être très familiers avec la signification du royaume dans le ministère de Jésus.

6. Lignes directrices pour la recherche et l’interprétation des paraboles. Lorsque les paraboles ont été prononcées pour la première fois, elles avaient rarement besoin d’être interprétées car leur propos était intuitivement évident pour les auditeurs. Mais parce que nous n’étions pas là et parce qu’ils ne sont que sous forme écrite, nous manquons de la compréhension immédiate de certains des points de référence que les auditeurs originaux avaient. Grâce au processus exégétique, cependant, nous pouvons découvrir leur point avec un haut degré de précision. Ce que nous devons faire est de traduire ce point dans notre propre contexte (comme l’a fait Matthieu - par exemple dans 18 : 10-14 ; 20 : 1-16). Une façon de le faire dans votre prédication est d’insérer dans l’histoire des points de référence contemporains qui sont appropriés sur le plan contextuel et herméneutique.

Alors que tous les outils, procédures et principes exégétiques normaux et traditionnels doivent être utilisés pour étudier les paraboles dans leur contexte afin de déduire l’intention de l’auteur, le genre de la parabole semble être si fluide, pour avoir une telle variété et contenir tant de niveaux de sens qu’ils laissent une grande souplesse dans la prédication. Nous devons nous rappeler que nos congrégations d’aujourd’hui aiment les histoires des paraboles et les trouvent généralement sans doute aussi fascinantes que les auditoires originaux. Cela souligne le pouvoir du récit.

La règle d’or (comme pour toutes les recherches exégétiques en préparation à une prédication) est de ne pas donner aux paraboles qu’elles n’étaient pas censées avoir. C’est une erreur courante dans l’interprétation des paraboles - à savoir, essayer de donner à chaque détail une signification alternative parallèle (c’est-à-dire allégoriser votre interprétation). Le problème avec l’allégorisation en tant que méthode d’interprétation est qu’elle est tellement subjective. Dix personnes différentes pourraient trouver dix significations différentes pour chaque détail. Une règle générale pour comprendre et prêcher les paraboles est que, comme le disait un de mes amis pasteurs, nous ne devrions pas essayer de “faire marcher les paraboles à quatre pattes » - c’est-à-dire ne pas essayer d’attribuer un sens à chaque petit détail à moins que cela soit évident de par la parabole elle-même.

De plus, l’allégorisation, en essayant d’attribuer un sens à chaque petit détail, passe souvent à côté de l’essentiel de la parabole. Afin de contrer la méthode d’interprétation allégorisation, certains chercheurs affirment que chaque parabole n’a qu’un seul point et que les détails ne sont que de la façade narrative. Mais c’est sûrement une simplification excessive. Par exemple, dans la parabole du fils prodigue, le fils, le père et le frère aîné ne représentent-ils pas chacun une personne différente ? Les paraboles peuvent faire un point unique ou plusieurs points, tout comme elles peuvent avoir plusieurs objectifs, formes et applications. Cependant, bien qu’une parabole puisse avoir plusieurs points de référence, chaque parabole (comme tout autre passage de l’Écriture) ne véhicule qu’un seul point ou principe théologique.

7. Une approche équilibrée pour l’interprétation des paraboles (adapté de Craig Blomberg, cité dans Duval and Hays, 260f.).

(a) Cherchez le point principal pour chaque personnage principal. Tous les autres détails ne font qu’enrichir l’histoire. Par exemple, dans la parabole du fils prodigue (Lc 15 :11-32), le fils prodigue représente clairement les pécheurs qui se tournent vers Dieu dans la repentance et la foi. Le père représente la volonté de Dieu d’étendre la miséricorde et le pardon. Le frère aîné représente les religieux – les pharisiens et les scribes à qui Jésus adressait la parabole (Lc 15, 2), qui pensent qu’eux seuls sont dignes de la grâce de Dieu.

Encore, dans la parabole du bon Samaritain (Lc. 10, 29-37), l’homme battu par un brigand représente le prochain dans le besoin (c’est le sujet que Jésus aborde, Lc. 10, 29). Le prêtre et le lévite représentent des chefs religieux dont on s’attendrait à ce qu’ils aiment inconditionnellement leurs « prochains », mais qui ne le font peut-être pas vraiment. Le Samaritain représente ceux dont on ne s’attendrait pas à ce qu’ils aiment leurs « prochain “d’origine religieuse et culturelle différente, mais qui peuvent en fait le faire de manière pratique et publique.

(b) Déterminez le point principal que le public original aurait compris. Ne lisez pas ou n’interprétez pas les paraboles isolément de ce qui se passe autour d’elles. Vérifiez attentivement leur contexte littéraire. Invariablement, les paraboles de Jésus illustrent ce qui se passait dans la question ou la circonstance immédiatement précédente.

Lorsque vous essayez de déterminer le point principal d’une parabole, il est utile de vous poser quelques questions, telles que : (1) Quelle réponse est demandée et générée ? (2) Y a-t-il une surprise, un rebondissement, un choc dans le récit ? (3) Comment ou que nous enseigne la parabole sur le royaume – directement ou indirectement ? (4) Quels sont l’orientation et l’enseignement christologiques et théologiques ? (5) De quel type de parabole s’agit-il - une vraie parabole, une comparaison ou une métaphore ? (6) Quels sont les différentes scènes et mouvements de la parabole ? (7) Qui est le public ? (8) Qui sont les personnages principaux et qui représentent-ils ? (9) Quel est le point théologique central ?

8. Quelques conseils supplémentaires pour interpréter les paraboles.

(1) Écoutez la parabole encore et encore. Identifiez les points de référence qui auraient été repris par les auditeurs de Jésus. Essayez de déterminer comment les auditeurs originaux se seraient identifiés à l’histoire - ce qu’ils auraient entendu et comment ils l’auraient interprété et appliqué. Parfois, le sens est énoncé explicitement dans la parabole ; d’autres fois, cela est sous-entendu par l’application (cf. Matt. 5 :13 ; 18 :21, 35 ; 29 :1-16 ; 22 :14 ; 25 :13 ; Lc. 12 :15-21 ; 15 :7, 10 ; 18 :1, 9 ; 19 :11).

(2) Examinez le contexte attentivement. Comme pour toute méthodologie d’interprétation solide, examinez attentivement le contexte de chaque parabole dans la perspective que l’auteur a choisie pour présenter son matériel. Par exemple, la parabole des ouvriers dans la vigne (Matt. 20 :1-16) vient immédiatement après l’histoire du jeune dirigeant riche (Matt. 19 :16-22). Après avoir souligné que la richesse peut être un grand obstacle à l’entrée dans le royaume, Pierre dit : “Regarde, nous avons tout quitté et nous t’avons suivi. Alors qu’y aura-t-il pour nous ? (Lc. 19 :27). Jésus assure à Pierre qu’ils recevront leur juste récompense (Lc. 19 :28-30), mais fait suivre à cette assurance la parabole sur le « propriétaire qui sortit tôt le matin pour embaucher des ouvriers pour sa vigne “(Matt. 20 : 1), dans laquelle Jésus réprimande l’attitude pharisaïque de Pierre : “Vois ce que nous avons fait pour toi Jésus, combien nous avons donné pour toi… » Pierre parlait comme les ouvriers de la vigne qui pensaient avoir droit à plus que ceux qui n’ont pas travaillé aussi longtemps qu’ils l’ont fait, plutôt que de se contenter de servir le Christ par amour. C’est dans cette perspective que l’auteur a choisi de présenter cette parabole.

Examinons d’abord le contexte historique et culturel – son cadre spécifique. Par exemple, Jésus raconte la parabole du fils prodigue précisément pour réprimander les scribes et les pharisiens qui murmuraient contre lui : “Cet homme accueille des gens de mauvaise vie et mange avec eux » (Lc. 15 :1-2). Ensuite, Jésus raconte la parabole dans laquelle les pharisiens et les scribes sont dépeints comme ceux qui « se plaignent plutôt que de se réjouir lorsqu’un pécheur est « retrouvé... “Le point à apprécier est le rôle du fils aîné, dont le seul frère - pas un sur cent ou même un sur dix – avait été perdu. Ce fils aîné représente les pharisiens grincheux, qui semblent incapables de partager la joie de Dieu et des anges du ciel “(Moises Silva, 112-113).

Pour comprendre le contexte culturel, il faut étudier les coutumes du premier siècle afin de comprendre l’impact de ce qui se dit et se fait. Par exemple, lorsque le fils prodigue a demandé à son père de lui donner sa part d’héritage, il demandait quelque chose qui n’a normalement lieu qu’à la mort du père. Ce faisant, il en déduit qu’il souhaitait la mort de son père. Comprendre cela rend l’amour et la grâce du père à recevoir ces fils d’autant plus remarquables.

II. Renforcement Le Leadership Biblique “Le Ministère De La Réconciliation, Pt. 4 (Suite) : Un Appel Pour La Réconciliation Du Peuple De Dieu Avec Le Ministre De Dieu “(2 Cor. 6 :11-7 :16)

Nous continuons avec ce passage à nouveau dans cette édition du Net Pastors Journal. La dernière fois, nous avons couvert 2 Cor. 6 :11-18 dans lequel nous avons abordé les deux premières sections du passage :

1. Un appel pastoral d’amour (6 :11-13).

2. Un appel pastoral d’avertissement (6 :14-18).

Maintenant, nous continuons avec la troisième section …

3. L’application de l’appel pastoral (7 :1-4). « Ayant donc... » (tirant une conclusion de ce qui vient d’être dit), sur la base des promesses contenues dans l’A.T. (6:16-18) que Dieu sera leur Père, rétablissant Son peuple dans sa relation appropriée avec lui, si (notez que les promesses sont conditionnelles) ils se séparent du mal (à savoir les pratiques religieuses païennes ; en particulier, le culte des idoles ) alors l’injonction de Paul est : “Ayant donc de telles promesses, bien-aimés, purifions-nous de toute souillure de la chair et de l’esprit, en achevant notre sanctification dans la crainte de Dieu» (7:1).

Pour Paul, le principe primordial de la sainteté parmi le peuple de Dieu est que nous “Ne vous mettez pas avec les infidèles sous un joug étranger » (6 :14), et la pratique d’une telle sainteté parmi le peuple de Dieu est que nous nous « purifions de toute souillure de la chair et de l’esprit » (7 :1). Le principe est que « les injustes n’hériteront pas le royaume de Dieu ? (1 Cor. 6 :9-10). Le peuple de Dieu a été « lavé… sanctifié… justifié au nom du Seigneur Jésus-Christ et par l’Esprit de notre Dieu “(1 Cor. 6 :11) et est donc, en principe et en permanence, purifié «de toute souillure de la chair et de l’esprit. »

Le principe doit être évident dans leur pratique pour qu’il soit vrai d’eux. En d’autres termes, la sanctification positionnelle doit être démontrée dans la sanctification pratique. Nous avons été sanctifiés par Dieu - c’est la sanctification positionnelle (par exemple, Ac. 26 :18 ; Héb. 10 :14 ; 13 :12 ; 1 Pi. 1 :2 ; Éph. 5 :26 ; Jn. 17 :17) - et nous devons nous sanctifier – c’est une sanctification progressive et pratique (1 Cor. 1 :18 ; 1 Pi. 3 :15) afin que notre union avec le Christ devienne de plus en plus évidente et réelle dans nos vies. Ayant été libéré de l’esclavage du péché (Rom. 6 :11-18) et capable maintenant de ne pas pécher (1 Jn. 3 :9), Dieu agit en nous (1 Thess. 5 :23 ; Tite 2 :14) afin que nous devenions de plus en plus semblables à Christ (2 Cor. 3 :18 ; Rom. 8 :29 ; Héb. 13 :20-21 ; 1 Jn. 2 :6 ; 3 :7). Le Saint-Esprit est l’agent divin particulièrement actif dans notre sanctification (1 Thess. 4 :3 ; 2Thess. 2 :13 ; Gal. 5 :16-18, 22-23).

Il n’y a pas ici de conflit entre les concepts jumeaux de sanctification passive et active. Non seulement la sanctification est une œuvre de Dieu en nous par laquelle nous sommes sanctifiés, mis à part, appelés saints, saints (1 Cor. 1 :2 ; 2 Cor. 1 :1), et non seulement Dieu en Christ nous a accordé la sanctification (Rom. 1 : 30 ; 2 Th. 2 : 13), mais aussi nous nous sanctifions, en nous efforçant de ne péché (1 Cor. 6 : 18 ; 2 Cor. 7 : 1 ; 1 Jn. 3 : 6‑9), cherchant à mettre en pratique ce que Dieu déclare être vrai de nous (1 Cor. 7 :34 ; 1 Thess. 4 :3-8 ; Rom. 6 :19), et désirant ressembler davantage à Christ (Rom. 8 :13 ; Héb. 12 :1 ; Phil. 2 :12 ; 3 :13-14 ; 2 Pierre 1 :5ff.).

L’« impureté » (souillure, malpropreté) qui résulte du fait d’être « sous un joug étranger “(en particulier, au culte d’autres dieux) est totale en ce qu’elle souille à la fois « la chair et l’esprit ». Par conséquent, la « purification » qui est requise de la “chair » (nettoyage physique, extérieur - qui nous sommes à l’extérieur) et de “l’esprit » (nettoyage spirituel, intérieur - qui nous sommes à l’intérieur) est également totale.

« Amener la sainteté à son achèvement “implique certainement que notre sanctification est progressive alors que nous nous efforçons ici et maintenant de tendre vers la sainteté, tout en comprenant que la perfection de la sainteté ne sera réellement expérimentée qu’à notre glorification. Mais même si l’ultime achèvement de ce processus de sanctification aura lieu dans l’eschaton (1 Thess. 3 :13 ; Jude 24 ; 2 Cor. 11 :2), nous continuons néanmoins à nous efforcer maintenant d’amener ce processus à son achèvement. Encore une fois, l’utilisation de l’expression “mener à bien » indique que c’est quelque chose que nous devons faire pour nous-mêmes. Comme cela s’applique aux Corinthiens, ils doivent perfectionner leur sainteté en se séparant de toute souillure ou association avec des incroyants - en particulier le culte des idoles, mais sans s’y limiter.

Tout comme “la crainte de Dieu » était l’un des facteurs de motivation dans le ministère de Paul (5 :11 ; cf. 1 Cor. 2 :3 ; 2 Cor. 7 :11), elle devrait être l’un des principaux facteurs pour motiver le peuple de Dieu à la sainteté – “pour nous purifier de toute impureté de la chair et de l’esprit ». Nous vivons sous le regard omniscient et omniscient de Dieu. Nous ne pouvons pas échapper à son examen minutieux et à son jugement.

Poursuivant son flux de pensée de 6 :11-12, Paul continue avec son appel pastoral aux Corinthiens. « Donnez-nous une place dans vos cœurs. Nous n’avons fait tort à personne, nous n’avons ruiné personne, nous n’avons tiré du profit de personne » (7 :2). Il les supplie de lui donner « une place dans leur cœur ». Il leur avait apporté la bonne nouvelle de l’évangile en premier lieu, afin que leurs cœurs lui soient ouverts et, inversement, fermés aux faux apôtres (qui gagnaient une influence sur eux) et aux incroyants dont ils adoptaient les pratiques païennes. (David E. Garland, 2 Corinthiens, 344). Après tout, il n’y avait rien de sa part qui les ferait agir envers lui comme ils l’avaient fait. Malgré ses sévères réprimandes et ses fortes directives, il n’avait fait de tort à personne, il n’avait corrompu personne, ni trompé personne. Alors, pourquoi le traiteraient-ils de cette façon ; pourquoi le fermeraient-ils leurs cœurs ?

« Ce n’est pas pour vous condamner que je parle de la sorte ; car j’ai déjà dit que vous êtes dans nos cœurs à la vie et à la mort » (7 : 3). Paul veut être sûr qu’ils n’interprètent pas mal sa déclaration de défense dans 7 :2. Quelqu’un le lisant, particulièrement dans la condition spirituelle des Corinthiens, pourrait déduire que Paul ne se défendait pas mais les accusait. Par conséquent, il clarifie sa déclaration en disant : “Ce n’est pas pour vous condamner que je parle de la sorte » et il reconfirme son amour pour eux, « car j’ai déjà dit que vous êtes dans nos cœurs à la vie et à la mort ». Il ne veut aucun malentendu à ce sujet.

L’expression « à la vie et à la mort » pourrait être traduite par : “pour que nous mourons ensemble en vue de (« εις “en grec) vivre ensemble ». Ainsi, il s’agit vraiment d’une déclaration d’intention dans laquelle Paul peut avoir à l’esprit ici soit une référence à son expérience chrétienne et à leur dévouement actuels (c’est-à-dire mourir avec le Christ et vivre en et pour le Christ), soit peut-être fait-il référence à leur avenir commun quand ils mourront ensemble en tant que croyants en Christ et ressusciteront ensemble dans leur destin commun de vivre ensemble au ciel avec Christ, telle est la proximité avec eux qu’il veut leur communiquer.

« J’ai une grande confiance en vous, j’ai tout sujet de me glorifier de vous ; je suis rempli de consolation, je suis comblé de joie au milieu de toutes nos tribulations » (7 : 4). Ce verset pourrait être interprété soit comme le dernier verset de cet excursus (2 :14-7 :4) soit comme le premier verset de la section suivante (7 :4-16) qui est une continuation de 2 :13 concernant trouver Titus et entendre son rapport à leur sujet. Plutôt que d’essayer de décider où le verset s’inscrit, il est probablement plus sûr de considérer 7 : 4 comme un verset charnière terminant une section et commençant la suivante, car il se rapporte bien aux deux. Il conclut le renforcement positif de l’attitude de Paul envers eux (7 :3) et il introduit sa réaction positive au rapport de Tite (7 :5-16), qui, à son tour, se rapporte à l’ouverture de l’épître (2 :2 -3 cf. 7 :4, 13).

Son ancienne audace de parole envers eux (les réparant sur divers problèmes) avait provoqué la repentance pieuse et l’action corrective qu’il voulait et qui était nécessaire (7 : 9-10). Ainsi, son discours direct pour leur réprimande et leur correction a atteint le résultat escompté et produit maintenant sa “fierté “en eux. Son audace de parole qui aurait pu rompre définitivement leur relation (car personne n’aime être corrigé) s’est en fait bien déroulée grâce à leur réponse positive, de sorte que maintenant il est capable et se plaît à être fière d’eux. En effet, il est « je suis rempli de consolation... je suis comblé de joie “même dans (et malgré) “toutes nos tribulations. “Les afflictions auxquelles il se réfère sont évidemment celles qu’il a rencontrées en Macédoine lorsqu’il y est allé chercher Tite (7 :5).

III. Plans De Sermons

Titre : L’évangile selon Jésus (Matt. 7 :13-14)

Sujet : Deux chemins vers l’éternité.

Thème : Vous devez choisir le chemin étroit et difficile de la vérité si vous voulez entrer dans le royaume de Dieu.

Point 1 : Une route commence facilement mais se termine difficilement (7 :13).

1a) Ça commence facile car l’entrée est large et la route est spacieuse.

1b) Ça finit dur parce que sa destination est la destruction éternelle.

Point 2 : L’autre route commence difficilement mais se termine facilement (7:14).

2a) Ça commence dur car l’entrée est étroite et la route est difficile.

2b) Il se termine facilement car sa destination est la vie éternelle.

Related Topics: Pastors

Jurnalul Electronic Al Păstorilor, Rom Ed 44, Editia de Vară 2022

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Consolidarea Predicării Expozitive:
Predicarea Din Evanghelii, Partea A 3-A: Pildele

Pildele nu apar exclusiv în evanghelii. Natan, de pildă, a folosit o pildă ca să-l înștiințeze pe David cu privire la păcatul său (2 Sam. 12:1-10). Isaia a folosit o pildă pentru a ridica acuzații împotriva casei lui Israel (Is. 5:1-7. Să reținem că pilda se află în Is. 5:1-6, iar aplicația în Is. 5:7). Totuși, în acest articol voi trata pilda ca sub-gen al „evangheliei”.

1. Definiția și structura pildelor. Pilda este o scurtă povestire în care anumite experiențe și personaje din viața de zi cu zi reprezintă anumite adevăruri morale sau spirituale. Isus a folosit adesea pilde pentru a explica ceva. De obicei, o pildă începe cu descrierea evenimentelor sau a personajelor implicate într-o anumită situație și se încheie cu o aplicație directă sau cu explicarea povestirii, astfel încât ascultătorii să înțeleagă relevanța pildei în viața lor. De asta vedem adesea reacții negative puternice la pildele lui Isus, pentru că ele atingeau conștiința ascultătorilor.

2. Formele literare ale pildelor. Simplu spus, pilda este o formă de limbaj figurat. Permiteți-mi să fac următoarele distincții…

(1) Pildele „adevărate”. Când spun pilde „adevărate”, mă refer la acele pilde care urmează structura și definiția de mai sus. Iată câteva exemple de pilde „adevărate”: (1) Bunul Samaritean (Lc. 10:25-37); (2) Oaia pierdută, banul pierdut și fiul rătăcitor (Lc. 15:1-32); (3) Pilda celor poftiți la cină (Lc. 14:15-24); (4) Pilda lucrătorilor viei (Mat. 20:1-16); (5) Pilda bogatului nemilostiv (Lc. 16:19-31); (6) Pilda celor zece fecioare (Mat. 25:1-13).

(2) Comparațiile. Unele pilde iau forma unor comparații extinse, în care subiectul și obiectul cu care acesta este asemănat sunt lucruri distincte și sunt explicate printr-o comparație, folosind expresiile „se aseamănă cu” sau „ca” – ex. „Împărăţia cerurilor se mai aseamănă cu…” (Mat. 13:44-46). Iată câteva exemple de pilde sub formă de comparații extinse: (1) Pilda aluatului (Mat. 13:33); (2) Pilda semănătorului (Mat. 13:1-23); (3) Pilda grăuntelui de muștar (Mat. 13:31-32).

(3) Metaforele. Unele pilde au caracteristicile unei metafore extinse, în care, spre deosebire de comparația extinsă, comparația între subiect și obiectul cu care este comparat este implicită și inseparabilă – ex. „Voi sunteţi sarea pământului… Voi sunteţi lumina lumii” (Mat. 5:13-14). Deși s-ar putea spune că astfel de afirmații sunt simple metafore (ceea ce este adevărat), totuși, în contextul în care sunt folosite, cred că este corect să considerăm că unele au anumite caracteristici de pilde în structura și scopul lor.

3. Scopul pildelor. În ciuda simplității aparente a formei și conținutului pildei, au existat multe dezbateri cu privire la semnificația lor. Și într-adevăr, unele pilde sunt greu de înțeles, cum ar fi pilda ispravnicului necredincios (Lc. 16:1-13). Citim o astfel de povestire și ne întrebăm: „Ce anume a vrut să spună Isus? Oare chiar laudă El nedreptatea acestui om? Sau este ceva dincolo de ceea ce se observă la prima vedere?” Chiar și ucenicii au întrebat uneori ce înseamnă unele din pildele lui Isus (Mc. 4:10; Lc. 8:9).

Din păcate, și explicațiile date de Isus cu privire la semnificația pildei sunt greu de înțeles: „Vouă”, le-a zis El, „v-a fost dat să cunoaşteţi taina Împărăţiei lui Dumnezeu; dar pentru cei ce sunt afară din numărul vostru, toate lucrurile sunt înfăţişate în pilde; pentru ca, „măcar că privesc, să privească şi să nu vadă, şi măcar că aud, să audă şi să nu înţeleagă, ca nu cumva să se întoarcă la Dumnezeu şi să li se ierte păcatele.” (Mc. 4:11-12; citând din Is. 6:9-10). Deși această afirmație nu înseamnă că acesta a fost scopul tuturor pildelor lui Isus, totuși explică de ce Isus a folosit unele pilde pentru a prezenta taina divină cu privire la natura împărăției lui Dumnezeu, o taină a cărei semnificație este descoperită celor ce au viață divină, însă care este ascunsă de cei ce refuză adevărul cu încăpățânare.

Poate că înțelegem mai bine explicația lui Isus atunci când ne gândim că lucrarea Lui a avut două efecte diametral opuse. După cum spune apostolul Pavel, pentru unii ascultători, mesajul lui Isus din pilde a fost „o mireasmă de la viaţă spre viaţă”, însă pentru alții, „o mireasmă de la moarte spre moarte” (2 Cor. 2:14-16). Sau după cum spune apostolul Petru, „pentru voi care aţi crezut”, Isus este prezentat în pilde astfel: „Piatra pe care au lepădat-o zidarii a ajuns să fie pusă în capul unghiului”, însă pentru necredincioși, El este „o Piatră de poticnire şi o Stâncă de cădere” (1 Pet. 2:7-8). Cu alte cuvinte, pildele lui Isus îi sileau pe oameni să se poziționeze de-o parte sau de alta. Fie erai cu El, fie împotriva Lui. În mod clar, acesta a fost efectul multor pilde – îi divizau pe oameni, arătând astfel adevărul din inima lor. După cum spune Moises Silva, „Pildele… atunci când sunt adresate celor care se împotrivesc Domnului, devin instrumente ale judecății. Astfel, «celui ce are i se va da; dar de la cel ce n-are se va lua şi ce are» (Mc. 4:25).” (Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics [O introducere în hermeneutica biblică], 111).

Pildele mai au, apoi, rolul de a face deosebire între cei care Îl ascultau pe Isus – pe de o parte, să ascundă adevărul de cei care respingeau cuvintele Lui și, pe de altă parte, să clarifice adevărul pentru cei care răspundeau pozitiv la cuvintele Lui. Pentru cei care răspundeau pozitiv la cuvintele Sale, pildele lui Isus Îl revelau pe Dumnezeu, adevărul Lui și planurile Sale pentru poporul Său. Pentru cei care Îl respingeau pe Isus și cuvintele Sale, pildele erau folosite de Isus ca instrumente de judecată și ca mijloc de a ascunde adevărul de ei (ex. Mat. 13:10-15; Mc. 4:11-12; Lc. 8:9-10). După cum spune Henry Virkler, „aceleași pilde care îi ajutau pe credincioși să înțeleagă mai bine, erau fără sens pentru cei care își împietreau inima în fața adevărului” (Virkler, Hermeneutics [Hermeneutică], 165). Această învățătură este similară cu cea din 1 Corinteni 2, care vorbește despre capacitatea persoanei regenerate de a înțelege adevărul spiritual, în comparație cu incapacitatea persoanei neregenerate. Diferența constă în faptul că prima are vedere spirituală, pe când cealaltă este oarbă din punct de vedere spiritual. Așadar, pildele au două ținte sau puncte focale – credincioșii și necredincioșii.

Pildele au două scopuri: (1) să dea învățătură ascultătorilor cu privire la adevăruri spirituale ca rugăciunea, dărnicia etc. (ex. Mat. 13:10-12; Mc. 4:11) și (2) să îi provoace cu privire la trăirea lor nepotrivită, păcătoasă sau ipocrită (ex. Lc. 7:36-50). În general, scopul pildelor este să descopere adevărul cu privire la caracterul și identitatea ascultătorilor – cine și ce sunt ei.

4. Natura pildelor. Poate că ceea ce explică de ce Isus a folosit atât de mult pildele în învățătura Sa este faptul că acestea sunt istorisiri interesante simple despre viața de zi cu zi, ușor de înțeles pentru oamenii de rând, cu care se puteau identifica și din care puteau extrage învățături.

Pildele, așadar, descoperă, clarifică, scot în evidență și aplică adevărul spiritual, adresându-se atât inimii, cât și conștiinței. Pildele, prin natura lor, lasă o impresie în mintea și conștiința oamenilor mult mai dramatică, eficientă și de durată decât simpla rostire a ideii – ex. văduva insistentă și judecătorul nedrept (Lc. 18:1-8) sau vameșul și fariseul (Lc. 18:9-14).

Pildele sunt, așadar, povestiri veridice despre situații, persoane și evenimente familiare, în care se compară o situație, o persoană sau un eveniment cu altul, pentru a ilustra, a lămuri și a învăța un adevăr spiritual important, însă necunoscut sau nerecunoscut. Prin natura lor, pildele sunt indirecte și cer un răspuns de la ascultători.

5. Cum să înțelegem și să interpretăm pildele. Pilda este mesajul. Scopul ei este să capteze atenția ascultătorilor, să-i uluiască cu privire la acțiunile lor sau să-i determine să reacționeze într-un fel sau altul față de Isus și lucrarea Lui. Această trăsătură a pildelor le face greu de interpretat, pentru că este ca și cu interpretarea glumelor – dacă trebuie să interpretezi o glumă, ea nu mai este amuzantă și își pierdea acea claritate intuitivă. Ca și în cazul impactului imediat al unei glume, cei care ascultă o pildă se vor identifica imediat cu punctele de referință care i-au făcut să înțeleagă ideea pildei.

Pildele nu au același impact în cazul nostru ca și în cazul ascultătorilor din vremea aceea, pentru că uneori nu prindem imediat ideea ca și ei, din cauza distanței în timp și a diferențelor de cultură și limbaj. Totuși, dacă interpretăm corect pildele, putem înțelege și noi ceea ce au înțeles ei atunci.

În general, interpretarea și aplicarea povestirii vin la finalul pildei, fiind distincte de povestirea în sine. De exemplu, în Luca 7:40-42, cele trei puncte de referință sunt: cămătarul și cei doi datornici. Identificarea are loc imediat: (1) Dumnezeu este precum cămătarul; (2) femeia păcătoasă și Simon sunt ca cei doi datornici. Pilda este un cuvânt de judecată, care cere un răspuns de la Simon. Forța pildei este atât de mare încât Simon nu putea rata mesajul ei. Trebuie să observăm că punctele de referință nu constituie pilda. Rolul lor este doar de a-i atrage pe ascultători în povestire și să ofere un punct de referință cu care aceștia să se identifice. Scopul povestirii se află în răspunsul cerut. În cazul nostru, un cuvânt de judecată împotriva lui Simon și a prietenilor lui și un cuvânt de acceptare și iertare către femeie.

Să nu uităm că toate pildele lui Isus sunt, într-o anumită măsură, un mijloc prin care Isus a ales să descrie și să proclame Împărăția. Prin urmare, trebuie să cunoaștem foarte bine semnificația Împărăției în lucrarea lui Isus.

6. Principii pentru studierea și interpretarea pildelor. Atunci când pildele au fost rostite pentru prima dată, rareori aveau nevoie de interpretare, pentru că ascultătorii le înțelegeau în mod intuitiv. Însă pentru că noi nu ne aflăm acolo și pentru că noi le avem doar în formă scrisă, nu avem acea înțelegere imediată a unor puncte de referință, pe care o aveau ascultătorii de atunci. Prin procesul exegetic, însă, putem descoperi mesajul lor cu un grad de acuratețe destul de mare. Și ce trebuie noi să facem este să aducem acel mesaj în contextul nostru (cum a făcut Matei – ex. 18:10-14; 20:1-16). O modalitate în care poți face lucrul acesta în predicarea ta este să inserezi în povestire puncte de referință contemporane potrivite din punct de vedere contextual și hermeneutic.

Toate instrumentele, procedurile și principiile exegetice tradiționale obișnuite trebuie folosite atunci când studiem pildele în contextul lor, cu scopul de a deduce intenția autorului, însă genul literar al pildei pare atât de fluid, având o varietate mare și conținând multiple niveluri de semnificații, încât permite o mare flexibilitate în predicare. Să nu uităm că membrilor noștri le plac pildele și de obicei le consideră la fel de fascinante cum erau, fără îndoială, și pentru primii ascultători. Aceasta subliniază puterea narațiunii.

Regula de aur (ca și în cazul oricărui studiu exegetic în vederea pregătirii unei predici) este să nu facem pilda să spună altceva decât trebuia să spună. Aceasta este o greșeală frecventă în interpretarea pildelor – adică să încerci să dai fiecărui detaliu o semnificație alternativă paralelă (i.e. să alegorizezi interpretarea). Problema alegorizării ca metodă de interpretare este faptul că e foarte subiectivă. Zece persoane diferite ar putea avea zece semnificații diferite pentru fiecare detaliu al pildei. O regulă generală pentru înțelegerea și predicarea pildelor este că, așa cum spunea un prieten de-al meu, pastor, nu trebuie să încercăm „să facem pilda să se conformeze” – adică să nu încercăm să facem fiecare detaliu să aibă o semnificație anume decât dacă aceasta este evidentă în pildă.

Mai mult, alegorizarea, adică încercarea de a conferi semnificație fiecărui mic detaliu, duce adesea la pierderea din vedere a mesajului general al pildei. Pentru a contracara alegorizarea ca metodă de interpretare, unii teologi susțin că fiecare pildă are un singur mesaj și că detaliile sunt doar o cosmetizare narativă. Însă aceasta este o simplificare exagerată. De exemplu, în pilda fiului risipitor, tatăl, fiul și fratele mai mare nu reprezintă fiecare o altă persoană? Pildele pot transmite un singur mesaj sau mai multe, la fel cum pot avea mai multe scopuri, forme și aplicații. Totuși, chiar dacă o pildă poate avea mai multe puncte de referință, fiecare pildă (ca orice alt pasaj din Scriptură) transmite o singură idee teologică sau un singur principiu teologic.

7. O abordare echilibrată a interpretării pildelor (adaptat după Craig Blomberg, citat în Duval și Hays, 260 și urm.).

(a) Caută ideea principală a fiecărui personaj principal. Toate celelalte detalii doar dezvoltă povestirea. De exemplu, în pilda fiului risipitor (Lc. 15:11-32), este limpede că fiul risipitor reprezintă păcătosul care se întoarce la Dumnezeu cu pocăință și credință. Tatăl reprezintă dorința lui Dumnezeu de a oferi îndurare și iertare. Fratele mai mare reprezintă oamenii religioși – fariseii și cărturarii, cei cărora Isus le spunea pilda (Lc. 15:2) și care credeau că erau singurii vrednici de harul lui Dumnezeu.

Apoi, în pilda samariteanului milostiv (Lc. 10:29-37), omul bătut de tâlhari îl reprezintă pe aproapele nostru care se află în nevoie (acesta este subiectul abordat de Isus, Lc. 10:29). Preotul și levitul îi reprezintă pe liderii religioși, de la care te-ai aștepta să-și iubească aproapele în mod necondiționat, însă care s-ar putea să nu facă asta cu adevărat. Samariteanul îi reprezintă pe cei care de la care nu te-ai aștepta să-și iubească „aproapele”, care vin dintr-un context religios și cultural diferit, însă care s-ar putea să își arate, de fapt, dragostea într-un mod practic și public.

(b) Stabilește ideea principală pe care au înțeles-o ascultătorii inițiali. Nu citi și nu interpreta o pildă, izolând-o de contextul ei! Verifică cu atenție contextul ei literar! Pildele lui Isus întotdeauna ilustrează ceea ce se întâmpla în împrejurarea imediat anterioară.

Atunci când încerci să stabilești ideea principală a unei pilde, există câteva întrebări ajutătoare, cum ar fi: (1) Care este răspunsul cerut și oferit? (2) Există o surpriză, o întorsătură sau ceva șocant în narațiune? (3) Cum sau ce ne învață pilda despre Împărăție – direct ori indirect? (4) Care este învățătura și accentul teologic și cristologic? (5) Ce tip de pildă este – o pildă adevărată, o comparație sau o metaforă? (6) Care sunt scenele și mișcările din pildă? (7) Cine sunt ascultătorii? (8) Cine sunt personajele principale și pe cine reprezintă ele? (9) Care este ideea teologică centrală?

8. Câteva sugestii în plus pentru interpretarea pildelor.

(1) Ascultă pilda din nou și din nou. Identifică punctele de referință care ar fi fost alese de ascultătorii lui Isus. Încearcă să stabilești cum s-ar fi identificat cu povestirea ascultătorii inițiali – ce ar fi auzit ei și cum ar fi interpretat și aplicat ce au auzit. Uneori semnificația pildei apare în pildă în mod explicit; alteori semnificația este sugerată în aplicație (cf. Mat. 5:13; 18:21, 35; 29:1-16; 22:14; 25:13; Lc. 12:15-21; 15:7, 10; 18:1, 9; 19:11).

(2) Cercetează contextul cu atenție. Ca în cazul oricărei metodologii de interpretare serioase, cercetează cu atenție contextul fiecărei pilde din perspectiva din care autorul a ales să-și prezinte materialul. De exemplu, pilda lucrătorilor viei (Mat. 20:1-16) vine imediat după istorisirea cu tânărul bogat (Mat. 19:16-22). După ce se arată că bogățiile pot fi un mare obstacol în ce privește intrarea în Împărăție, Petru spune: „Iată că noi am lăsat totul şi Te-am urmat” (Lc. 18:28). Isus îl asigură pe Petru că își vor primi răsplata cuvenită (Lc. 19:28-30), însă continuă apoi cu pilda despre „un gospodar care a ieşit dis-de-dimineaţă să-şi tocmească lucrători la vie” (Mat. 20:1), pildă în care Isus mustră atitudinea lui Petru de auto-neprihănire: „Vezi ce am făcut noi pentru tine, Isus, și la câte am renunțat pentru Tine…” Petru vorbea ca acei lucrători din vie, care credeau că li se cuvine o plată mai mare decât celor care nu au lucrat la fel de mult, în loc să se mulțumească să-L slujească pe Hristos din dragoste. Aceasta este perspectiva din care autorul a ales să prezinte pilda.

În primul rând, să privim la contextul istoric și cultural – adică la contextul specific al pildei. De exemplu, Isus spune pilda fiului risipitor anume pentru a-i mustra pe cărturari și farisei, care cârtiseră împotriva Lui: „Omul acesta primeşte pe păcătoşi şi mănâncă cu ei” (Lc. 15:1-2). Apoi, Isus spune pilda în care fariseii și cărturarii sunt prezentați ca fiind cei care „se plâng în loc să se bucure atunci când un păcătos este «găsit»… Ceea ce trebuie să evaluăm aici este rolul fiului mai mare, al cărui unic frate – nu unul dintr-o sută și nici măcar unul din zece – fusese pierdut. Acest frate mai mare îi reprezintă pe fariseii care cârteau și care păreau incapabili să se bucure împreună cu Dumnezeu și cu îngerii din cer” (Moises Silva, 112-113).

Pentru a înțelege contextul cultural, trebuie să studiem obiceiurile oamenilor din primul secol, ca să înțelegem impactul a ceea ce se spune sau se face. De exemplu, când fiul risipitor cerea ca tatăl să-i dea partea lui de moștenire, el cerea ceva ce, în mod normal, nu ar fi primit înainte de moartea tatălui său. Făcând lucrul acesta, el sugera că și-ar fi dorit ca tatăl său să moară. Dacă înțelegem aceasta, dragostea tatălui și harul arătat atunci când își primește fiul înapoi sunt chiar mai uimitoare.

II. Consolidarea Conducerii Biblice
„Slujba Împăcării, Partea A 4-A (Continuare): O Chemare La Împăcarea Poporului Lui Dumnezeu Cu Slujitorul Lui Dumnezeu” (2 Cor. 6:11-7:16)

Continuăm tot cu acest text biblic în prezenta ediție a jurnalului. Data trecută am studiat 2 Cor. 6:11-18 și am vorbit despre primele două secțiuni ale textului:

1. O chemare pastorală la dragoste (6:11-13).

2. O chemare pastorală la avertizare (6:14-18).

Continuăm acum cu cea de-a treia secțiune…

3. Aplicarea chemării pastorale (7:1-4). „Deci...” (se trage o concluzie din ceea ce s-a spus mai înainte), pe baza promisiunilor din Vechiul Testament (6:16-18), conform cărora Dumnezeu va fi Tatăl lor, readucându-și poporul într-o relație corectă cu El, dacă (observați că promisiunile sunt condiționate) se vor separa de rău (adică de practicile religioase păgâne; mai exact, de închinarea la idoli), Pavel poruncește: „Deci fiindcă avem astfel de făgăduinţe, preaiubiţilor, să ne curăţăm de orice întinăciune a cărnii şi a duhului şi să ne ducem sfinţirea până la capăt, în frica de Dumnezeu” (7:1).

Pentru Pavel, principiul de bază al sfințeniei pentru poporul lui Dumnezeu este: „Nu vă înjugaţi la un jug nepotrivit cu cei necredincioşi” (6:14), iar trăirea acestei sfințenii în poporul lui Dumnezeu înseamnă „să ne curăţăm de orice întinăciune a cărnii şi a duhului” (7:1). Principiul este că „cei nedrepţi nu vor moşteni Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Cei din poporul lui Dumnezeu au fost „spălați…sfințiți… socotiţi neprihăniţi, în Numele Domnului Isus Hristos şi prin Duhul Dumnezeului nostru” (1 Cor. 6:11) și sunt, așadar, curățiți, declarațional și pozițional, „de orice întinăciune a cărnii şi a duhului...”

Principiul trebuie să fie evident în trăirea lor ca să fie adevărat cu privire la ei. Cu alte cuvinte, sfințirea pozițională trebuie să fie demonstrată prin sfințirea practică. Am fost sfințiți de Dumnezeu – aceasta este sfințirea pozițională (ex. Fapte 26:18; Evr. 10:14; 13:12; 1 Pet. 1:2; Ef. 5:26; In. 17:17) – și noi trebuie să ne sfințim – aceasta este sfințirea practică și progresivă (1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:15; ), pentru ca unirea noastră cu Hristos să devină din ce în ce mai evidentă și mai reală în viața noastră. Fiind eliberați de robia păcatului (Rom. 6:11-18), putând astfel să nu mai păcătuim (1 In. 3:9), Dumnezeu lucrează în noi (1 Tes. 5:23; Tit 2:14), ca să devenim tot mai asemănători cu Hristos (2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:29; Evr. 13:20-21; 1 In. 2:6; 3:7). Duhul Sfânt, în special, este agentul divin activ în sfințirea noastră (1 Tes. 4:3; 2 Tes. 2:13; Gal. 5:16-18, 22-23).

Nu există conflict între cele două concepte gemene de sfințire pasivă și sfințire activă. Sfințirea nu este doar o lucrare a lui Dumnezeu în noi, prin care suntem sfințiți, puși deoparte, numiți sfinți (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) și Dumnezeu nu numai că ne-a dat sfințirea în Hristos (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tes. 2:13), ci și noi ne sfințim, străduindu-ne să evităm păcatul (1 Cor. 6:18; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 In. 3:6-9) și să facem ceea ce Dumnezeu spune că este adevărat cu privire la noi (1 Cor. 7:34; 1 Tes. 4:3-8; Rom. 6:19), dorind să fim tot mai mult ca și Hristos (Rom. 8:13; Evr. 12:1; Fil. 2:12; 3:13-14; 2 Pet. 1:5 și urm.).

„Întinăciunea” (pângărirea, murdărirea) care rezultă din a fi „înjugaţi la un jug nepotrivit cu cei necredincioşi” (mai exact, din închinarea la zei) este totală, pentru că întinează și „carnea și duhul.” De aceea, „curățirea” cerută apoi „cărnii” (curățire exterioară, fizică – cine suntem în exterior) și „duhului” (curățire interioară, spirituală – cine suntem în interior) este, de asemenea, totală.

„Să ne ducem sfinţirea până la capăt.” Îndemnul acesta sugerează, cu certitudine, că sfințirea noastră este progresivă, pentru că ne străduim aici și acum către sfințenie, înțelegând totodată că sfințenia deplină va fi experimentată doar la glorificarea noastră. Însă chiar dacă desăvârșirea procesului de sfințire va avea loc în eschaton (1 Tes. 3:13; Iuda 24; 2 Cor. 11:2), totuși continuăm să ne luptăm acum pentru a duce acest proces la capăt. Repet, folosirea expresiei „să ducem până la capăt” indică faptul că noi trebuie să facem lucrul acesta. În ce-i privește pe corinteni, ei trebuie să-și ducă sfințirea până la capăt, separându-se de orice întinăciune și asociere cu cei necredincioși – în special în ce privește închinarea la idoli, dar nu numai.

Așa cum „frica de Domnul” a fost unul dintre factorii motivatori în slujirea lui Pavel (5:11; cf. 1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 7:11), tot așa trebuie să fie unul dintre factorii principali în motivarea poporului lui Dumnezeu în procesul sfințirii – „să ne curăţăm de orice întinăciune a cărnii şi a duhului.” Noi trăim sub privirea atotvăzătoare și atotcunoscătoare a lui Dumnezeu. Nu putem scăpa de cercetarea și judecata Lui.

Continuând șirul de idei din 6:11-12, Pavel își continuă chemarea pastorală adresată corintenilor. „Înţelegeţi-ne bine! N-am nedreptăţit pe nimeni, n-am vătămat pe nimeni, n-am înşelat pe nimeni” (7:2). El stăruiește pe lângă ei: „Înţelegeţi-ne bine”. El le adusese vestea bună a evangheliei pentru prima dată, așa că inimile lor ar trebui să fie deschise pentru el și, dimpotrivă, închise pentru apostolii falși (care câștigau influență asupra lor) și pentru necredincioșii ale căror practici păgâne le adoptau (David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians [2 Corinteni], 344). În definitiv, nu era nimic la el care să-i facă să se poarte cu el așa cum o făceau. Chiar dacă i-a mustrat aspru și le-a dat instrucțiuni drastice, el nu a nedreptățit pe nimeni, nu a vătămat și nu a înșelat pe nimeni. Așa că, de ce să se poarte astfel cu el? De ce să-l dea la o parte?

„Nu spun aceste lucruri ca să vă osândesc, căci am spus mai înainte că sunteţi în inimile noastre pe viaţă şi pe moarte” (7:3). Pavel vrea să se asigure că ei nu vor răstălmăci ceea ce el a spus în apărarea sa în 7:2. Cineva s-ar putea gândi, mai ales cineva aflat în starea spirituală a corintenilor, că Pavel nu se apăra acolo, ci îi acuza pe ei. De aceea, el își clarifică afirmația: „Nu spun aceste lucruri ca să vă osândesc” și își reconfirmă dragostea pentru ei: „sunteţi în inimile noastre pe viaţă şi pe moarte.” El vrea ca aceste lucruri să fie înțelese foarte clar.

Expresia „pe viaţă şi pe moarte” ar putea fi tradusă „ca să murim împreună pentru (“εις” în greacă) a trăi împreună.” Acesta este într-adevăr scopul său, prin care Pavel s-ar putea să se refere fie la devotamentul și experiența creștină prezentă a lui și a lor (i.e. a muri cu Hristos și a trăi în și pentru Hristos) sau poate se referă la viitorul lor comun, când vor muri împreună ca și credincioși în Hristos și vor fi înviați împreună pentru destinul lor comun de a trăi împreună în cer cu Hristos. El este atât de apropiat de ei, încât vrea să comunice cu ei.

„Am o mare încredere în voi. Am tot dreptul să mă laud cu voi. Sunt plin de mângâiere, îmi saltă inima de bucurie în toate necazurile noastre” (7:4). Versetul acesta poate fi interpretat ca fiind fie ultimul verset din excursus (2:14-7:4), fie primul verset din următoarea secțiune (7:4-16), care este o continuare de la 2:13 referitor la găsirea lui Tit și la ce va avea el de spus despre ei. Decât să încercăm să decidem unde se potrivește acest verset, este probabil mai bine să considerăm 7:4 un verset de legătură care încheie o secțiune și o începe pe următoarea, din moment ce se potrivește foarte bine cu ambele. Versetul încheie reafirmarea atitudinii pozitive a lui Pavel față de ei (7:3) și introduce reacția sa pozitivă față de raportul lui Tit (7:5-16), care, la rândul său, are legătură cu începutul epistolei (2:2-3 cf. 7:4, 13).

Îndrăzneala pe care o avusese în vorbirea sa față de ei (corectându-i cu privire la diferite aspecte) adusese o pocăință plină de evlavie și acțiunea corectivă necesară pe care el o dorea (7:9-10). Astfel, vorbirea lui directă atunci când i-a mustrat și i-a corectat și-a atins scopul dorit și îl face acum să se poată „lăuda” cu ei. Vorbirea lui plină de îndrăzneală, care ar fi putut afecta relația lor pentru totdeauna (pentru că nimănui nu îi place să fie corectat), a avut totuși un rezultat bun, pentru că ei au avut un răspuns bun, așa că el poate și chiar se bucură să se laude cu ei. Într-adevăr, „sunt plin de mângâiere… îmi saltă inima de bucurie” chiar și „în toate necazurile noastre” (și în ciuda lor). Necazurile la care se referă sunt, în mod evident, cele pe care le-a întâlnit în Macedonia, unde s-a dus să-l caute pe Tit (7:5).

III. Schițe De Predici

Titlu: Evanghelia după Isus (Mat. 7:13-14)

Subiect: Două drumuri spre veșnicie.

Tema: Trebuie să alegi calea îngustă și grea a adevărului, dacă vrei să intri în Împărăția lui Dumnezeu.

Punctul 1: Un drum începe ușor, dar se termină greu (7:13).

1a) Începe ușor pentru că intrarea este largă și drumul este lat.

1b) Se termină greu pentru că duce la distrugere veșnică.

Punctul 2: Celălalt drum începe greu, dar se termină ușor (7:14).

2a) Începe greu pentru că intrarea este îngustă și drumul este dificil.

2b) Se termină ușor pentru că duce la viață veșnică.

Related Topics: Pastors

Журнал для пасторов Net, Rus Ed 44, Летнее издание 2022

Служение Института Библейского Проповедования…

Автор: Проф. Роджер Паскоу, Президент,
Email: [email protected]

I. Усиливая Объяснтительную Проповедь: Проповедь Новозаветных Евангелий, Ч. 3, Притчи

Притчи встречаются не только в Евангелиях. Нафан, например, использовал притчу, чтобы предупредить Давида о его грехе (2 Цар. 12:1-10). Исаия использовал притчу, чтобы обвинить дом Израилев (Ис. 5:1-7. Обратите внимание, что притча находится в Ис. 5:1-6, а ее применение - в Ис. 5:7). Однако для целей этой статьи я буду рассматривать притчи как поджанр «евангелия».

1. Определение и структура притч. Притча — это короткий рассказ, в котором определенные повседневные переживания и персонажи представляют определенные моральные или духовные истины. Иисус часто использовал притчи, чтобы подчеркнуть мысль. Как правило, притча начинается с описания событий или персонажей в конкретной ситуации и заканчивается прямым применением или объяснением истории, чтобы слушатели осознали ее актуальность для своей жизни. Вот почему вы часто встречаете сильную негативную реакцию на притчи Иисуса, потому что они затрагивают совесть слушателей.

2. Литературные формы притч. Проще говоря, притча — это форма образного языка. Позвольте мне сделать следующие различия…
1) «Правдивые» притчи. Под «истинными» притчами я подразумеваю притчи, которые следуют структуре и определению, которые я изложил выше. Примеры «истинных» притч: 1) Добрый самаритянин (Лк. 10:25-37); 2) Потерянная овца, потерянная монета и потерянный сын (Лк. 15:1-32); 3) Великая вечеря (Лк. 14:15-24); 4) Работники в винограднике (Мф. 20:1-16); 5) Богач и Лазарь (Лк. 16:19-31); 6) Десять дев (Мф. 25:1-13).

2) Сравнения. Некоторые притчи принимают форму развернутых сравнений, в которых предмет и вещь, с которой он сравнивается, отличаются друг от друга и становятся явными с помощью таких сравнений, как «подобно» или «как». «Царство Небесное подобно…» (Мф. 13:44-46). Примеры притч в форме развернутых сравнений: 1) Закваска в муке (Мф. 13:33); 2) Сеятель (Мф. 13:1-23); 3) Горчичное зерно (Мф. 13:31-32).

3) Метафоры. Некоторые притчи имеют черты развернутой метафоры, в которой, в отличие от развернутого сравнения, сравнение между предметом и вещью, с которой он сравнивается, неявно и нераздельно - например. «Вы - соль земли… Вы - свет миру» (Мф. 5:13-14). Хотя можно поспорить, что такие утверждения являются просто метафорами (и это было бы правдой), тем не менее, в контексте, в котором они используются, я считаю справедливым классифицировать некоторые из них, как имеющие иносказательные черты в своей структуре и цели.

3. Цель притч. Несмотря на кажущуюся простоту формы и содержания притч, было много споров о том, что они означают. И действительно, есть притчи, которые трудно понять, как, например, притча о нечестном управителе (Лк. 16:1-13). Мы читаем подобную историю и спрашиваем себя: «Что именно имел в виду Иисус? Он действительно хвалит нечестность этого человека? Или в этой истории есть нечто большее, чем кажется на первый взгляд?» Даже сами ученики задавались вопросом, что означали некоторые притчи Иисуса (Мк. 4:10; Лк. 8:9).

К сожалению, объяснение Иисусом значения притч само по себе трудно понять: «Вам дано знать тайны Царства Божьего, а тем внешним все бывает в притчах, так что они своими глазами смотрят, но не видят, и всегда слышат, но не разумеют; да не обратятся и будут прощены им грехи» (Мк. 4:11-12; цитируется Ис. 6:9-10). Хотя это утверждение не обязательно подразумевает, что это было целью всех притч Иисуса, оно объясняет, почему он использовал некоторые притчи, чтобы представить божественную тайну относительно природы Царства Божьего, тайну, значение которой открывается тем, кто обладает божественной силой. жизни, но утаивается от тех, кто непреклонно отвергает истину.

Возможно, объяснение Иисуса лучше понять в контексте того, что его служение имело два диаметрально противоположных результата. По выражению апостола Павла, для одних слушателей послание Иисуса в притчах было «запахом живительным на жизнь», а для других «запахом смертоносным на смерть» (2 Кор. 2:14-16). Или, как выразился апостол Петр, для «тех, кто уверовал» Иисус представлен в притчах как «камень, который отвергли строители, Сделавшийся краеугольным камнем», а для неверующих Он — «камень, о который они претыкаются, и камень, о который спотыкаются» (1 Пет. 2:7-8). Другими словами, притчи Иисуса заставляли людей принимать какую-либо сторону. Вы были либо за него, либо против него. Очевидно, это было следствием многих притч – они разделили людей и тем самым открыли истину их сердец. Как указывает Мойзес Сильва: «Притчи… когда они обращены к тем, кто восстал против Господа, становятся орудиями суда. Таким образом, «кто имеет, тому будет дано больше; кто не имеет, у того отнимется и то, что имеет» (Мк. 4:25). (Сильва, Введение в библейскую герменевтику, с. 111).

Таким образом, притчи служат цели различения тех, кто слышал Иисуса, — с одной стороны, для того, чтобы скрыть истину от тех, кто отверг Его слова, а с другой стороны, чтобы разъяснить истину тем, кто положительно откликнулся на Его слова. Тем, кто положительно отреагировал на его слова, притчи Иисуса открыли Бога, Его истину и Его цели для своего народа. Для тех, кто отверг Иисуса и его слова, Иисус использовал притчи как орудие суда и средство скрыть от них истину (напр., Мф. 13:10-15; Мк. 4:11-12; Лк. 8:9-10). Как выразился Генри Вирклер: «Те же притчи, которые давали понимание верным верующим, были лишены смысла для тех, кто ожесточал свои сердца против истины» (Вирклер, Герменевтика, с.165). Это учение похоже на 1 Коринфянам 2 относительно способности возрожденного человека понимать духовную истину в сравнении с неспособностью невозрожденного человека. Разница в том, что у одного есть духовное зрение, а у другого - духовная слепота. Таким образом, притчи имеют две цели, или фокусf, – первый для верующих, второй - для неверующих.

Цель притч двояка: 1) научить слушателей духовным истинам, таким как молитва, даяние и т. д. (например, Мф. 13:10-12; Мк. 4:11), и 2) бросить им вызов в отношении неправильного, греховного или лицемерного образа жизни (напр., Лк. 7:36-50). В общем, цель притч — раскрыть правду о характере и личности слушателей — кто они, и что они из себя представляют.

4. Природа притч. Вероятно, характеристика притч, которая объясняет, почему Иисус так часто использовал их в своем учении, заключается в том, что это были простые интересные истории из повседневной жизни, которые обычные люди могли понять, с которыми они могли отождествлять себя, и из которых они могли чему-то научиться.

Таким образом, притчи раскрывают, проясняют, подчеркивают и применяют духовную истину как к сердцу, так и к совести. Природа притч такова, что они производят впечатление на умы и совесть людей гораздо более драматичное, действенное и продолжительное, чем простое изложение сути — т.е. упорная вдова и неправедный судья (Лк. 18:1-8), или фарисей и мытарь (Лк. 18:9-14).

Таким образом, природа притч заключается в том, что они представляют собой рассказы из реальной жизни о знакомых ситуациях, людях и событиях, которые сравнивают одну ситуацию, человека или событие с другой, чтобы проиллюстрировать, просветить и научить незнакомой или непризнанной, но важной духовной истине. По своей природе притчи косвенны и требуют ответа от слушателей.

5. Понимание и толкование притч. Притча — это послание. Говорится, чтобы обратиться к слушателям и захватить их, рассказать им об их собственных действиях или заставить их каким-то образом отреагировать на Иисуса и его служение. Именно эта особенность затрудняет толкование притч, потому что она чем-то похожа на толкование анекдота — если вам приходится его толковать, он не может быть смешным и интуитивно очевидным. Как и в случае с непосредственным обращением к шутке, слушатели притч должны были немедленно отождествить себя с теми моментами, которые заставили их понять суть притчи.

Поскольку мы можем не сразу понять сути из-за нашей отдаленности от времени, культуры и языка притч, они действуют на нас не так, как на первых слушателей. Однако, правильно иистолковывая притчи, мы можем понять то, что тогда понимали они.

Как правило, толкование и применение истории происходит в конце притчи и отличается от самой истории. Например, в Луки 7:40-42 три ориентира: ростовщик и два должника. Отождествление происходит немедленно: 1) Бог подобен ростовщику; 2) блудница и Симон подобны двум должникам.

Притча – это слово суда, требующее ответа от Симона. Сила притчи такова, что Симон не мог упустить ее сути. Следует отметить, что оиертиры сами по себе не составляют притчи. Они служат только для того, чтобы вовлечь слушателей в историю и дать им ориентир, с кем или с чем они отождествляются. Суть истории в предполагаемом ответе. В данном случае слово осуждения Симону и его друзьям и слово принятия и прощения женщине.

Помните, что все притчи Иисуса в некотором роде являются средством, которое Иисус избрал для описания и провозглашения Царства. Следовательно, мы должны очень хорошо знать значение царства в служении Иисуса.

6. Рекомендации по исследованию и толкованию притч. Когда притчи были впервые произнесены, они редко нуждались в толковании, поскольку их смысл был интуитивно очевиден для слушателей. Но поскольку нас там не было и поскольку они были только в письменной форме, нам не хватало непосредственного понимания некоторых отиентиров, которые были у первоначальных слушателей. Однако посредством толковательного процесса мы можем обнаружить их точку зрения с высокой степенью точности. Что нам нужно сделать, так это перевести этот момент в наш собственный контекст (как это сделал Матфей, например, 18:10-14; 20:1-16). Один из способов сделать это в своей проповеди — это вставить в историю контекстуально и герменевтически подходящие современные ориентиры.

В то время как все обычные, традиционные экзегетические инструменты, процедуры и принципы должны быть использованы при изучении притч в их контексте, чтобы сделать вывод об авторском замысле, жанр притчи кажется таким изменчивым, имеющим такое разнообразие и содержащий такое множество уровней. Это означает, что они оставляют большую гибкость в проповеди. Мы должны помнить, что наши собрания сегодня любят притчи и обычно находят их такими же увлекательными, как и первоначальные слушатели. Это подчеркивает силу повествования.

Золотое правило (как и во всех толкующих исследованиях при подготовке к проповеди) состоит в том, чтобы не придавать притчам значения того, для чего они не предназначались. Это распространенная ошибка при толковании притч, а именно попытка придать каждой детали параллельный альтернативный смысл (т. е. аллегоризировать ваше истолкование). Проблема аллегоризации как метода толкования заключается в том, что она очень субъективна. Десять разных людей могли придумать десять разных значений для каждой детали. Общее правило для понимания и проповеди притч заключается в том, что, как говаривал один мой друг-пастор, мы не должны пытаться «заставить притчи ходить на четвереньках», то есть не пытаться придавать смысл каждой детали, если она не очевидна из самой притчи.

Более того, аллегоризация, пытающаяся придать значение каждой детали, часто упускает из виду общий смысл притчи. Чтобы противостоять аллегорическому методу толкования, некоторые ученые утверждают, что каждая притча имеет только один смысл, а детали - просто повествовательная показуха. Но это, безусловно, чрезмерное упрощение. Например, в притче о блудном сыне не представляют ли сын, отец и старший брат разных личностей? Притчи могут иметь одну или несколько точек зрения, так же как они могут иметь несколько целей, форм и применений. Однако, хотя притча может иметь несколько моментов, каждая притча (как и любой другой отрывок из Писания) имеет только одну доктринальную основу или принцип, который она передает.

7. Сбалансированный подход к толкованию притч (адаптировано из Craig Blomberg, цитируется у Duval and Hays, 260f.).
а) Искать главную мысль для каждого главного героя. Все остальные детали лишь усиливают историю. Например, в притче о блудном сыне (Лк. 15:11-32) блудный сын ясно представляет грешника, обращающегося к Богу с покаянием и верой. Отец представляет готовность Бога проявить милость и прощение. Старший брат олицетворяет религиозных людей – фарисеев и книжников, к которым Иисус обращался в притче (Лк. 15:2), считающих, что они одни достойны благодати Божией.

Опять же, в притче о добром самаритянине (Лк. 10:29-37) человек, побитый разбойником, представляет нуждающегося ближнего (это тема, к которой обращается Иисус, Лк. 10:29). Священник и левит представляют религиозных лидеров, от которых можно было бы ожидать безоговорочной любви к своим «ближним», но на самом деле они могут этого не делать. Самарянин представляет тех, от кого вы не ожидаете, что они будут любить своих «ближних» с другим религиозным и культурным происхождением, но которые действительно могут делать это практически и публично.

б) Определите основную мысль, которую могли бы понять первоначальные слушатели. Не читайте и не толкуйте притчи в отрыве от того, что происходит вокруг них. Внимательно проверьте их литературный контекст. Притчи Иисуса неизменно иллюстрируют то, что происходило в непосредственно предшествующем вопросе или обстоятельстве.
Пытаясь определить основной смысл притчи, полезно задать себе несколько вопросов, например: 1) К какому ответу призывают и взывают? 2) Есть ли в повествовании неожиданность, поворот, шок? 3) Как или чему эта притча учит нас о Царстве – прямо или косвенно? 4) Какова христологическая и богословская направленность и учение? 5) Что это за притча – настоящая притча, сравнение или метафора? 6) Каковы различные сцены и движения притчи? 7) Кто аудитория? 8) Кто главные персонажи и кого они представляют? 9) Что является центральным теологическим моментом?

8. Еще несколько советов по толкованию притч.
1) Слушайте притчу снова и снова. Определите ориентиры, которые могли быть схвачены слушателями Иисуса. Попытайтесь определить, как первоначальные слушатели отождествили бы себя с историей – что они услышали бы, и как бы они это истолковали и применили. Иногда смысл прямо указывается в притче; в других случаях это подразумевается через применение (ср. Мф. 5:13; 18:21, 35; 29:1-16; 22:14; 25:13; Лк. 12:15-21; 15:7, 10; 18:1, 9; 19:11).

2) Внимательно изучите контекст. Как и в случае любой прочной методологии толкования, внимательно исследуйте контекст каждой притчи с той точки зрения, которую автор выбрал для представления своего материала. Например, притча о работниках в винограднике (Мф. 20:1-16) идет сразу после истории о богатом юноше-управителе (Мф. 19:16-22). Указав, что богатство может быть большим препятствием для входа в Царство, Петр говорит: «Вот, мы оставили все и последовали за вами. Так что же будет для нас?» (Лк. 19:27). Иисус уверяет Петра, что они получат должное вознаграждение (Лк. 19:28-30), но следует за этим заверение притчей о «хозяине земли, который вышел рано утром нанять работников для своего виноградника» (Мф. 20: 1), в этой притче Иисус упрекает Петра в самодовольстве: «Смотри, что мы сделали для Тебя, Иисус, сколько мы пожертвовали ради Тебя…» платить больше, чем те, кто не работал так долго, как они работали, вместо того, чтобы довольствоваться служением Христу из любви. Именно с такой точки зрения автор избрал эту притчу.

Во-первых, посмотрите на исторический и культурный контекст — его конкретную обстановку. Например, Иисус рассказывает притчу о блудном сыне специально, чтобы обличить книжников и фарисеев, роптавших на него: «Он принимает грешников и ест с ними» (Лк. 15:1-2). Затем Иисус рассказывает притчу, в которой фарисеи и книжники изображаются как те, кто «скорее жалуется, чем радуется, когда грешник „найден”… Следует оценить роль старшего сына, чей единственный брат — не один из ста или даже один из десяти – и он был потерян. Этот старший сын олицетворяет ворчливых фарисеев, которые, кажется, не могут разделить радость Бога и ангелов небесных» (Мойзес Сильва, с. 112–113).

Понимание культурного контекста требует изучения обычаев первого века, чтобы понять влияние того, что говорится и делается. Например, когда блудный сын просил отца отдать ему его часть наследства, он просил то, что обычно не происходит до того как отец умер. Поступая так, он как бы желает смерти своему отцу. Понимание этого делает любовь и благодать отца, принявшего обратно этого сына, еще более замечательными.

II. Усиливая библейское руководство
“Служение примирения, Ч. 4 (продолжаю): Призыв к примирению Божьего народа с Божьим служителем» (2 Кор. 6:11-7:16)

Мы снова продолжим этот отрывок в этом выпуске журнала для пасторов The Net В прошлый раз мы рассмотрели 2 Кор. 6:11-18, в котором мы обратились к первым двум частям отрывка:

1. Пасторский призыв любви (6:11-13).

2. Пасторский призыв увещевания (6:14-18).

Теперь мы продолжаем третий раздел…

3. Применение пасторского призыва (7:1-4). «Итак...» (делая вывод из только что сказанного), исходя из обетований, содержащихся в В.З. (6:16-18), что Бог будет их Отцом, восстанавливая Свой народ в надлежащих отношениях с Ним, если (обратите внимание, что обетования условны) они отделят себя от зла (а именно, языческих религиозных практик; в частности, идолопоклонства), то наставление Павла: «Итак, возлюбленные, имея такие обетования, очистим себя от всякой скверны плоти и духа, совершая святыню в страхе Божием» (7:1).

Для Павла главный принцип святости среди Божьего народа состоит в том, чтобы мы «не преклонялись под ярмо с неверующими» (6:14), и практика такой святости среди Божьего народа заключается в том, что мы «очищаем себя от всякой нечистоты». плоти и духа» (7:1). Принцип заключается в том, что «неправедные не наследуют Царства Божьего? (1 Кор. 6:9-10). Народ Божий был «омыт… освящен… оправдан во имя Господа Иисуса Христа и Духом Бога нашего» (1 Кор. 6:11) и, следовательно, в принципе и по существу очищен «от всякой скверны плоти и духа..»

Этот принцип должен быть очевиден в их практике, чтобы он был верным. Другими словами, позиционное освящение должно проявиться в практическом освящении. Мы были освящены Богом — это позиционное освящение (например, Деян. 26:18; Евр. 10:14; 13:12; 1 Пет. 1:2; Еф. 5:26; Ин. 17:17) — и мы должны освящать себя – это постепенное, практическое освящение (1 Кор. 1:18;1 Пет. 3:15), чтобы наш союз со Христом становился все более и более очевидным и реальным в нашей жизни. Освободившись от рабства греха (Рим. 6:11-18) и будучи способным уже не грешить (1 Ин. 3:9), Бог действует в нас (1 Фес. 5:23; Тит. 2:14). так что мы все больше и больше уподобляемся Христу (2 Кор. 3:18; Рим. 8:29; Евр. 13:20-21; 1 Ин. 2:6; 3:7). В частности, Святой Дух является божественным посредником, действующим в нашем освящении (1 Фес. 4:3; 2 Фес. 2:13; Гал. 5:16-18, 22-23).

Этот принцип должен быть очевиден в их практике, чтобы он был верен им. Другими словами, позиционное освящение должно проявляться в практическом освящении. Мы были освящены Богом — это позиционное освящение (например, Деян. 26:18; Евр. 10:14; 13:12; 1 Пет. 1:2; Еф. 5:26; Ин. 17:17) — и мы должны освящать себя – это постепенное, практическое освящение (1 Кор. 1:18; 1 Пет. 3:15; ), чтобы наш союз со Христом становился все более и более очевидным и реальным в нашей жизни. Освободившись от рабства греха (Рим. 6:11-18) и будучи способным уже не грешить (1 Ин. 3:9), Бог действует в нас (1 Фес. 5:23; Тит. 2:14). так что мы все больше и больше уподобляемся Христу (2 Кор. 3:18; Рим. 8:29; Евр. 13:20-21; 1 Ин. 2:6; 3:7). В частности, Святой Дух является божественным посредником, действующим в нашем освящении (1 Фес. 4:3; 2 Фес. 2:13; Гал. 5:16-18, 22-23).

Здесь нет конфликта между двумя концепциями пассивного и активного освящения. Мало того, что освящение есть работа Божья в нас, посредством которой мы освящаемся, отделяемся, называемся святыми, освященными (1 Кор. 1:2; 2 Кор. 1:1), и не только Бог во Христе даровал нам освящение (Рим. 1:30; 2 Фес. 2:13), но и мы освящаем себя, стараясь избежать греха (1 Кор. 6:18; 2 Кор. 7:1; 1 Ин. 3:6-9), стремясь практиковать то, что Бог объявляет истиной о нас (1 Кор. 7:34; 1 Фес. 4:3-8; Рим. 6:19), и желая быть больше похожим на Христа (Рим. 8:13; Евр. 12:1; Флп. 2:12; 3:13-14; 2 Пет. 1:5 и далее).

«Нечистота» (осквернение, нечистота), возникающая в результате «воссоединения с неверующими» (в частности, в поклонении иным богам), тотальна, поскольку оскверняет и «плоть, и дух». Следовательно, «очищение», которое, следовательно, требуется от «плоти» (физическое, внешнее очищение — кто мы снаружи) и «духа» (духовное, внутреннее очищение — кто мы внутри), также является тотальным.

«Доведение святости до конца» безусловно подразумевает, что наше освящение прогрессивно, поскольку мы здесь и сейчас стремимся к святости, все время понимая, что совершенство святости будет реально переживаться только при нашем прославлении. Но хотя окончательное завершение этого процесса освящения произойдет в эсхатоне (1 Фес. 3:13; Иуды 24; 2 Кор. 11:2), тем не менее мы продолжаем стремиться и сейчас привести этот процесс к финалу. Опять же, использование фразы «доведение до конца» указывает на то, что это то, что мы должны сделать для себя. Что касается коринфян, то они должны совершенствовать свою святость, отделяя себя от любого осквернения неверующими или общения с ними, особенно, не ограничиваясь, идолопоклонством.

Точно так же, как «страх Божий» был одним из мотивирующих факторов в служении Павла (5:11; ср. 1 Кор. 2:3; 2 Кор. 7:11). Он должен был быть одним из основных факторов в служении Павла. Побуждение Божьего народа к святости – «очиститься от всякой скверны плоти и духа». Мы живем под всевидящим и всезнающим взглядом Бога. Мы не можем избежать его пристального внимания и осуждения.

Продолжая свой поток мыслей от 6:11-12, Павел продолжает свое пасторское обращение к коринфянам. «Освободите место для нас в ваших сердцах. Мы никого не обидели, никого не развратили, никого не обманули» (7:2). Он умоляет их «освободить место в их сердцах» для него. Он прежде всего принес им благую весть Евангелия, поэтому их сердца должны быть открыты для него и, наоборот, закрыты для лжеапостолов (которые приобретали у них популярность) и неверующих, чьи языческие обычаи они начинали перенимать. (Дэвид Э. Гарланд, “2 Коринфянам”, с. 344). В конце концов, с его стороны не было ничего, что заставило бы их вести себя по отношению к нему так, как раньше. Несмотря на его резкие упреки и строгие указания, он никого не обидел, никого не развратил и никого не обманул. Итак, почему они так к нему относятся; почему они закрылись от него?

«Говорю это не для того, чтобы осудить вас, ибо уже сказал, что вы в сердцах наших, чтобы вместе умереть и вместе жить» (7:3). Павел хочет быть уверенным, что они не истолкуют неправильно его заявление в свою защиту в 7:2. Кто-то, кто читает его, особенно о духовном состоянии коринфян, может сделать вывод, что Павел не защищал себя, а обвинял их. Следовательно, он разъясняет свое заявление словами: «Я говорю это не для того, чтобы осуждать вас», и подтверждает свою любовь к ним: «вы в наших сердцах, чтобы вместе умереть и жить вместе». Он не хочет никаких недоразумений по этому поводу.

Выражение «умереть вместе и жить вместе» можно было бы перевести так: «чтобы мы умерли вместе с целью («εις» по-гречески) жить вместе». Таким образом, это действительно заявление о цели, в которой Павел может иметь здесь в виду либо ссылку на его и их нынешний христианский опыт и преданность (т. е. смерть со Христом и жизнь во Христе и для Христа), либо, возможно, он имеет в виду их общее будущее, когда они умрут вместе, как верующие во Христа и вместе воскреснут в своей общей судьбе жить вместе на небесах со Христом, такова близость к ним, которую он хочет им сообщить.

«Я очень откровенен с вами; Я очень горжусь тобой. Я полон воодушевления; Я преисполнен радости при всех наших скорбях» (7:4). Этот стих может быть истолкован либо, как последний стих этого экскурса (2:14-7:4), либо как первый стих следующего раздела (7:4-16), который является продолжением 2:13 о том, как найти Тита и услышать свой отчет о них. Вместо того, чтобы пытаться решить, куда подходит этот стих, вероятно, безопаснее рассматривать 7:4, как связующий стих, заканчивающий один раздел и начинающий следующий, поскольку он хорошо связан с обоими. Это завершает положительное подкрепление Павлом своего отношения к ним (7:3) и представляет его положительную реакцию на сообщение Тита (7:5-16), которое, в свою очередь, относится к началу послания (2:2). -3 ср. 7:4, 13).

Его прежняя смелость в обращении с ними (исправление их по разным вопросам) привела к благочестивому покаянию и исправлению, которого он желал и в котором нуждался (7:9-10). Таким образом, его прямая речь об их упреке и исправлении достигла намеченного результата и вызывает теперь его «гордость» за них. Его смелость речи, которая могла навсегда разорвать их отношения (ибо никто не любит, когда его поправляют), на самом деле оправдалась благодаря их положительному ответу, так что теперь он может и с удовольствием хвастается ими. В самом деле, он «наполнен ободрением… переполнен радостью» даже (и несмотря на) «все наши невзгоды». Страдания, о которых он говорит, очевидно, с которыми он столкнулся в Македонии, когда отправился туда искать Тита (7:5).

III. План проповеди

Заголовок: Евангелие, согласно Иисусу (Мф. 7:13-14)

Предмет: Две дороги, ведущие в вечность.

Тема: Вам нужно избрать узкий, трудный путь истины, если вы хотите войти в Царство Божье.

Пункт 1: Одна дорога начинается легко, но заканчивается плохо (7:13).

1а) Начинается легко, потому что вход широкий и дорога широкая.

1б) Заканчивается тяжело, потому что ее конечная цель - вечная погибель.

Пункт 2: Другая дорога начинается сложно, но заканчивается легко (7:14).

2а) Начинается тяжело, потому что вход узкий и дорога трудная.

2б) Заканчивается легко, потому что ее конечная цель – вечная жизнь.

Related Topics: Pastors

網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版（繁體）, TCh Ed, Issue 44 2022 年 夏季

A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe,博士，主席,
郵箱: [email protected]

I. 加強講解式講道：傳講新約福音，第三部分，比喻

比喻並非是福音獨有的。比如拿單，用了一個比喻警示大衛關於他的罪（撒下12:1-10）。以賽亞用了一個比喻控告以色列家（賽5:1-7.其中1-6節為比喻，7節為應用）。 然而，為了本文的目的，我將把比喻作為“福音”的一個下屬類型來處理。

1..比喻的定義和結構。比喻是一種短篇故事，裡面的日常經歷和人物代表了某些道德或屬靈的真理。耶穌經常用比喻來說明問題。通常，比喻以描述某一特定情況下的事件或人物開始，以直接應用或解釋故事結束，使聽者認識到故事與他們的生活有關。這就是為什麼你經常會看到對耶穌比喻的強烈負面反應，因為這些比喻觸到了聽眾的良心。

2.比喻的文學形式。簡單來說，比喻是修辭的一種形式。讓我做以下的區分…

(1) “真正的”比喻。我所說的“真正的”比喻是指那些符合我上面所給出的結構和定義的比喻。“真正的”比喻的例子：（1）好撒瑪利亞人（路1:25-37）；（2）失羊、失錢和浪子（路15:1-32）；（3）大宴席（路14:15-24）；（4）在葡萄園做工（太2:1-16）；（5）財主和拉撒路（路16:19-31）；（6）十個童女（太25:1-13）.

(2)明喻。一些比喻採用擴展的明喻的形式，其中主體與被比較的事物是有區別的，通過使用“像”或者“如同”這樣的比較使其明確——“天國就像…”（太13:44-46）.比喻中明喻的例子有：（1）面酵（太13:33）；（2）撒種（太13:1-23）；芥菜種（太13:31-32）。

(3) 隱喻。有些比喻採用擴展的隱喻。與明喻不同的是， 隱喻的主體與被比較物之間的比較是隱含的、分不開的。例如“你們是世上的鹽…你們是世上的光”（太5:13-14）。雖然可以說這些陳述只是隱喻（這也是真的），但從他們所處的上下文來說，我認為有些隱喻從結構和目的來說有比喻的特點。

3..比喻的目的。雖然比喻的形式和內容簡單明瞭，但是關於它們的意義有很多爭論。確實，有些比喻難以理解，比如不義管家的比喻（路16:1-13）。當我們看到這樣一個故事，會問：“耶穌到底說的是什麼意思？難道他真的要我們不誠實嗎？或者這個故事不僅僅是表面所看到的？”。就連門徒們也會疑問耶穌一些比喻的意義（可4:10；‘路8:9’）。

不幸的是，耶穌對比喻意義的解釋本身就是一個難以理解的陳述：“神國的奧秘只叫你們知道；若是對外人講，凡事就用比喻，叫他們看是看見，卻不曉得；聽是聽見，卻不明白。恐怕他們回轉過來，就得赦免”（可4:11-12；引用賽6:9-10）.雖然這句話並不一定意味著這是耶穌所有比喻的目的，但是它確實解釋了為什麼耶穌用一些比喻來講解天國的神聖奧秘，這些神聖的奧秘對於那些有神的生命的人是敞開的，向頑固抵擋真理的人是隱藏的。

或許耶穌的解釋最好從經文的背景來理解。他的事工有兩方面完全相反的效果。正如使徒保羅說的，對有些人來說，耶穌在比喻中傳遞的資訊是“活的香氣叫人活”，但是對另外一些人就是“死的香氣叫人死”（哥後2:14-16）.或者，像使徒彼得說的，對於“你們相信的人”，耶穌是“匠人所棄的石頭已變成了房角的頭塊石頭”，但是對其他人，他是“絆腳的石頭，跌人的磐石”（彼前2:7-8）。換句話說，耶穌的比喻迫使人選擇立場。你不是支持他就是反對他。這顯然是很多比喻的效果—它們將人區分開來，並顯明人的心跡。就像Moises Silva所說的，“比喻…對那些選擇反對主的人來說，成為審判的工具。因此，‘有的，還要給他；沒有的，連他所有的也要奪去’（可4:25）” (Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 111)。

因此，比喻是為了區分那些聽過耶穌的人—一方面，向拒絕他的人，隱藏了真理，另一方面，向那些對他的話積極回應的人，顯明了真理。對於那些積極回應他的話的人，耶穌的比較彰顯了神，他的真理和他對自己百姓的心意。對於那些拒接耶穌和他的話的人，比喻被耶穌用作審判以及向他們隱藏真理的工具(比如太 13:10-15; 可 4:11-12; 路 8:9-10)。就像Henry Virkler說的，“同樣的比喻使忠誠的信徒明白真理，但對那些硬著心反對真理的人卻毫無意義” (Virkler, Hermeneutics, 165)。哥前2章也教導了同樣的道理，重生的人明白屬靈的真理，而未重生的人不能明白真理。不同的是，一個有屬靈的看見，而另一個是屬靈瞎眼的。因此，比喻有兩個目的或者焦點—一個對相信的人，第二個是對不相信的人。

比喻的目的是兩方面的：（1）教導聽者關於屬靈的真理，比如禱告、奉獻等（如可13:10-12；可4:11），和（2）就不當、罪惡或虛偽的生活向他們提出質疑（如路7:36-50）。一般來說，比喻的目的是向聽的人顯明他們的內心和品性—他們是誰/怎樣的人。

4. 比喻的本質。比喻是普通人能夠輕易理解的、能從中找到認同並能從中學習的、與日常生活相關的簡單有趣的故事。可能正是因為比喻的這些特點，耶穌在他的教導中大量使用比喻。

因此，比喻揭示、澄清、強調屬靈的真理並將其應用于心靈、良心。比喻的性質使它們能夠在人們的腦海和良心上留下深刻的印象，遠比僅僅陳述觀點更有影響、更有效、更持久—比如不懈的寡婦和不義的官（路18:1-8），或者法利賽人和稅吏的禱告（路18:9-14）。

因此，比喻的本質是真實的簡短故事，將相似的情況、人和事件與另外一個情況、人或事件比較，從而解釋、闡明和教導一個不熟悉或者不被知道但卻很重要的屬靈真理。本質上說，比喻是間接的，需要聽者做出回應。

5.理解和解釋比喻。比喻就是資訊。講比喻是為了抓住或引起聽眾注意，讓他們簡單瞭解自己的行為或者讓他們對耶穌的事工做出某種回應。正是這個特點，使得解釋比喻很困難，因為就像解釋一個玩笑—如果你必須解釋它，它就不再有趣和直觀。就像笑話的直接感染力一樣，比喻的聽眾也會立即與他們所明白的點產生共鳴。

由於我們與比喻的時間、文化和語言相距甚遠，我們可能無法立即明白這一點，因此它們對我們的作用與對原聽者的作用不同。然而通過對比喻進行解釋，我們有可能明白當時聽眾所理解的。

.一般來說，對故事解釋和應用會出現在故事結尾，與故事本身區分開來。比如路7:40-42，三個主要人物是：債主和兩個欠債的。聽眾立即會明白：（1）神就像這個債主；（2）妓女和西門就像兩個欠債的。這個比喻是一個審判，呼籲西門悔改。這個比喻的力量在於西門不可能錯過要點。需要注意的是，涉及到的人物本身並不構成比喻。他們只是為了把聽者吸引到故事中，使聽者能從中找到認同。這個故事的重點在於有意識的回應。在這個例子中，是對西門和他朋友的審判，對這個女人的接納和饒恕。

請記住，在某種程度上，耶穌的所有比喻都是耶穌選擇用來宣講天國的方式。因此，我們必須非常熟悉耶穌事工中天國的意義。

6.研究和解釋比喻的準則。當這些比喻第一次被說出來的時候，很少需要解釋，因為它們的意思對聽眾來說是直觀的。但由於我們當時不在現場，而且它們只有書面形式，我們缺乏對原始聽眾所擁有的一些相關點的直接理解。然而，通過解經過程，我們可以高度準確地發現它們的點。我們需要做的是把那個點應用到我們的背景下（如馬太——18:10-14；20:1-16）。你可以通過在講道中插入（從上下文和釋經上來說）適合的與當代相關的點，從而做到這一點。

雖然在上下文背景下研究比喻，所有正常的傳統的工具、程式和原則都必須應用上，以便於能夠推斷理解作者的意圖，但是比喻的體裁本身非常流暢、多樣，並包含多個層次的意義，給講道留下了很大的靈活性。我們應該記住，我們今天的聽眾喜愛比喻故事，並像最初的聽眾一樣認為它們很迷人一樣。這凸顯了故事的力量。

黃金法則（就像所有準備講道的解經研究一樣）是不要讓比喻表達它們所沒有的意思。這是解釋比喻的常見錯誤—即，試圖使比喻的每一個細節都有一個相對的意義（也就是寓意化你的解釋）。寓意化作為一種​​解釋方法，其問題在於它太過主觀。十個不同的人可以為每個細節想出十個不同的含義。理解和傳講比喻的一般規則是，正如我的一位牧師朋友曾經說過的，我們不應該試圖“讓比喻四肢著地行走”——即不要試圖為每一個小細節賦予意義，除非比喻本身顯明。

此外，寓意化試圖為每一個小細節賦予意義，往往會錯過比喻的整體要點。一些學者為了反駁寓意化的解釋方法，聲稱每個比喻只有一個要點，細節只是敘事的裝飾。但這無疑過於簡單化了。比如浪子的比喻中，兒子、父親、哥哥不都代表不同的人嗎？比喻可以有一個也可以有多個點，就像它們可以有多種目的、形式和應用一樣。然而，雖然一個比喻可能涉及到多個點，但每個比喻（就像任何其他聖經段落一樣）只有一個神學要點或它所傳達的原則。

7. 一種平衡的解釋比喻的方法（改編自 Craig Blomberg，引自 Duval 和 Hays，260f）。

(a)為每個主角找到要點。所有其他的細節只是增強了故事情節。例如，在浪子的比喻中（路15:11-32），浪子清楚地代表了悔改和相信神的罪人。父親代表神願意施憐憫和寬恕。哥哥代表宗教人士——也就是耶穌這個比喻所指向的物件，法利賽人和文士（路15:2）， 認為只有他們才配得神的恩典。

再比如在好撒瑪利亞人的比喻中（路10:29-37）。被強盜毆打的人代表有需要的鄰舍（這是耶穌所講的主題，路10:29）。祭司和利未人代表宗教領袖，你希望他們無條件地愛他們的“鄰居”，但他們可能不會真正這樣做。撒瑪利亞人代表那些你不會期望他們來愛具有不同宗教和文化背景的“鄰居”，但實際上可能以實際和公開的方式這樣做的人。

(b)確定最初聽眾所理解的要點。不要將比喻從上下文發生的事中孤立出來去閱讀或解釋。仔細查看它們的文學背景。耶穌的比喻總是說明在前面的問題或情況中發生了什麼。

在試圖確定比喻的要點時，問自己一些問題會很有幫助，例如：（1）這個比喻要求或產生什麼樣的反應？ (2) 敘述中是否有驚喜、轉折、震撼？ (3) 這個比喻直接或間接地教導我們關於神國的什麼？或者如何教導？ (4) 基督論和神學的重點和教導是什麼？ (5) 它是什麼類型的比喻——真正的比喻、明喻還是隱喻？ (6) 比喻有哪些不同的場景和動作？ (7) 聽眾是誰？ (8) 誰是主要人物，他們代表誰？ (9) 神學的中心論點是什麼？

8.解釋比喻的一些進一步提示

(1)一遍又一遍地聽這個比喻。找到耶穌的聽眾可能會聯想到的點。試著確定最初的聽眾會如何理解這個故事——他們會聽到什麼以及他們會如何解釋和應用它。有時，含義在比喻被明確說明了；有時，出現在應用中(參考 太 5:13; 18:21, 35; 29:1-16; 22:14; 25:13; Lk. 12:15-21; 15:7, 10; 18:1, 9; 19:11)。

(2)仔細查看上下文。就像所有可靠的解經方法一樣，從作者選擇呈現素材的角度，仔細查看每個比喻的上下文。比如，葡萄園工人的比喻（太20:1-16），緊跟在富有的少年人的故事之後（太19:16-22）。在指出財富可能是進入天國的一大障礙之後，彼得說：“看哪，我們已經撇下所有的跟從你，將來我們要得什麼呢？”（太19:27）。 耶穌向彼得保證他們會得到應有的獎賞（太19:28-30），但是緊接在這個保證之後是這個“家主清早出去，雇人進他的葡萄園做工”的比喻（太20:1）.在這個比喻中，耶穌責備彼得的自義“看看我們為你做了多少，耶穌，我們為你放棄了多少…”。彼得說話就像葡萄園裡的工人，他們認為自己比那些工作時間不長的人配得更多的工錢，而不是出於對基督的愛，滿足於服事基督。這就是作者所選擇呈現這個比喻的角度。

首先，看歷史和文化的背景—它特殊的設定。比如，耶穌講了浪子的比喻，專門責備那些發怨言的文士和法利賽人，“這個人接待罪人，又同他們吃飯”（路15:1-2）。接著，耶穌講述了一個比喻，其中法利賽人和文士被描繪成“當一個罪人‘被找到’時，他們會抱怨而不是歡喜……欣賞的重點是大兒子的角色，他唯一的弟兄，不是一百個中的一個也不是十個中的一個，迷失了。這個大兒子代表抱怨的法利賽人，他們似乎無法分享天堂裡神和天使的喜悅” (Moises Silva, 112-113)。

瞭解文化背景要求我們研究一世紀的習俗，以便我們瞭解經文中所說和所做的影響。例如，當浪子要求他的父親將他的那部分遺產分給他時，他要求的是通常在父親去世之前不會發生的事情。這樣做，說明了他希望他的父親死去。明白這一點，使父親接納這個兒子回來的愛和恩典更加顯著。

II.加強聖經化領導
“和好的職分，第四部分（繼續）：呼籲神的百姓與神的執事和好”（哥後6:11-7:16）

我們在本期的牧師網路雜誌中再次繼續這段經文。上次，我們介紹了 哥後 6:11-18這段經文的前兩節：

1.一個牧者愛的呼籲（6:11-13）

2.一個牧者警告的呼籲（6:14-18）

現在我們繼續第三部分…

3.. 牧者呼籲的應用（7:1-4）.“因此…”（從剛才所說的得出結論，），基於舊約的應許（6:16-18），（注意這個應許是有條件的）如果他們將自己與惡（外邦人的宗教行為，尤其指偶像敬拜）分別出來，神要做他們的父，恢復他的百姓與他應有的關係，然後保羅勸告：“親愛的弟兄，我們既有這等應許，就當潔淨自己，除去身體、靈魂一切的污穢，敬畏神，得以成聖”（7:1）。

對保羅而言，神的百姓最重要的聖潔原則是，我們“和不信的不要同負一軛”（6:14），而在神百姓中實踐這樣的聖潔就是要“潔淨自己，除去身體、靈魂的一切污穢”（7:1）。原則是“不義的人不能承受神的國”（哥前6:9-10）。神的百姓 “奉主耶穌基督的名，並借著我們神的靈，已經洗淨、成聖、稱義了”（哥前6:11）。

這個原則必須在他們的行為中明顯表現出來，對他們才會是真實的。換句話說，地位上成聖必須在行為的成聖中表現出來。我們已經被神分別為聖—這是地位上的成聖（例如徒 26:18; 來 10:14; 13:12; 1 彼 1:2; 弗 5:26; 約 17:17）——我們也必須潔淨自己—這是逐漸的、行為上的成聖（哥前1:18；彼前3:15），以至於我們與基督的聯合在我們的生活中變得越來越明顯和真實。已經從罪中得自由（羅6:11-18）並且能夠不再犯罪（1約3:9），神在我們裡面做工（帖前5:23；多2:14）以至於我們越來越像基督（哥後3:18；羅8:29；來13:20-21；1約2:6；3:7）。特別是聖靈，在我們成聖的過程中活躍作用（帖前4:3；帖後2:13；加5:16-18，22-23）。

被動成聖和主動成聖這兩個概念在這裡沒有衝突。成聖是神在我們裡面的工作，我們被潔淨，被分別出來、被稱為聖徒和聖潔的（哥前1:2；哥後1;1），神在基督裡使我們成為聖潔（羅1:30；帖後2:13），並且我們也潔淨自己，努力不犯罪（哥前6;18;哥後7:1；1約3:6:19），尋求去實踐神對我們所說的真理（哥前7:34；帖前4:3-8；羅6:19），渴慕更像基督（羅8:13；來12:1；腓2:12；3:13-14；彼後1:5ff）。

因為與“不信的人同負一軛”而導致的 “不潔淨”（污穢、骯髒）是完全的，污穢我們的“身體、靈魂”。因此，“潔淨”也是完全的，既需要“身體”的潔淨（身體上的、外面的潔淨—從外面看我們是誰），也需要“靈魂”的潔淨（靈魂，內在的—從裡面看我們是誰）。

“成全聖潔”意味著我們的成聖是逐步的，我們在這個世上努力成聖，但同時也明白只有在我們得榮耀的時候，我們的聖潔才會完全。雖然，成聖過程的完全要在世界末了的時候(帖前. 3:13; 猶 24; 哥後 11:2)，但不管怎樣，我們現在仍然繼續向著完全努力。另外“成全聖潔”也意味著這是我們必須為自己做的事情。就像哥林多教會，他們必須完全他們的聖潔，把自己與不潔淨的分開、不與不信的人相交—特別是，但不完全限於，偶像崇拜。

正如“敬畏神”是保羅事工的動力之一（5:11；參考哥前2:3；哥後7:11），所以這也應該成為神百姓追求聖潔的動力—“潔淨自己，除去身體、靈魂的一切污穢”。我們生活在神無所不知的注視之下。我們無法逃脫他的審查和審判。

跟隨著他在6:11-12節的思想，保羅繼續一個牧者對哥林多人的呼籲。“你們要心地寬大收納我們。我們未曾虧負誰，未曾敗壞誰，未曾占誰的便宜”（7:2）。他呼籲他們“心地寬大”收納他。他首先將福音的好消息傳給他們，他們的心應該向他敞開，向假使徒（正在影響他們的人）關閉(David E. Garland, 哥後, 344)。畢竟，保羅沒有做過任何事情使他們有理由這樣對待他。儘管他嚴厲斥責和強烈指示，但他沒有冤枉任何人，沒有腐蝕任何人，也沒有欺騙任何人。那麼，他們為什麼要這樣對待他？他們為什麼要把他拒之門外？

“我說這話，不是要定你們的罪。我已經說過，你們常在我們心裡，情願與你們同生同死”（7:3）。保羅想要確保他們不要誤解他在7:2中的辯護。讀它的人，尤其是哥林多人的屬靈狀況，可能會認為保羅不是在為自己辯護，而是在指責他們。因此他澄清他的辯護，“我說這話，不是要定你們的罪。我已經說過，你們常在我們心裡，情願與你們同生同死”。他不想他們對這有任何的誤會。

“情願與你們同生同死”可以被譯為“因此我們同死是為了(“εις” 希臘語)能夠同生”。因此保羅這個陳述是有目的的，他在這裡要麼指他和他們作為基督徒的經歷和奉獻（也就是和基督同死，並與他並為他而活），要麼指他們作為基督徒死後的共同未來，一起復活與基督一同在天上。他們之間有這樣親密的關係，這是他想向他們表達的。

“我大大地放膽，向你們說話。我因你們多多誇口，滿得安慰。我們在一切患難中分外地快樂”（7:4）。這節經文可以作為2:14-7:4這部分的最後一句，或者作為下一部分7:4-16的第一句。7:4-16可以看做2:3關於找到提多並聽提多報告的繼續。與其試圖決定這節經文的位置，不如考慮把7:4作為一個樞紐節，結束上一節，開始下一節，因為它與這兩節都很好地相關。7:4保羅強調了他對他們的積極態度，同時介紹了他對提多報告的積極回應，反過來，這又回到了書信開頭(2:2-3 參考 7:4, 13)。

他以前對他們的大膽講話（在各種問題上糾正他們）帶來了他想要和需要的敬虔悔改和改正（7:9-10）。因此，他對他們直率的責備和糾正達到了它的預期結果，現在使得他為他們感到“自豪”。他的放膽講論有可能永久斷絕他們的關係（因為沒有人喜歡被糾正），而事實上，通過他們的積極回應，他得到了很好的結果，所以現在他能夠並且高興地因他們誇口。確實，他“滿得安慰…分外地快樂”，儘管“在一切患難中”。他所指的患難顯然是他在馬其頓尋找提多時所遇到的（7:5）.

III. 講道大綱

題目:基督的福音（太7:13-14）

主旨:通向永生的兩條路

主題:如果你想要進入天國，你必須選擇窄的、難走的真理之路。

要點1:一條路容易走但結局艱難(7:13).

1a)它開始容易，因為入口是寬的，路是大的

1b).他結局艱難因為他的目的地是永恆的毀滅。

要點 2:另一條路難走但結局容易(7:14).

2a)它開始難因為入口窄，路難走

2b)它結局容易因為它的目的地是永生

Related Topics: Pastors

Q. Based on Genesis 16:6 are we to blame Sarah for Hagar’s running away?

Based on Genesis 16:6 are we to blame Sarah for Hagar’s running away? If Sarah acted like a loving Christian could there have been a good solution?

Answer

Dear Brother,

Your question is a good one, because it should help us greatly as we read the Old Testament. To put it plainly, the Old Testament saints – men and women – were not “saintly,” they were rascals. All too often we read the Old Testament in such a way as to paint these saints as pious saints, thereby overlooking their flaws, even their sins. What you have asked about Sarah, also applies to Abraham, who as a matter of policy, presented his wife, the future mother of the Messianic seed, as his sister, a woman eligible for marriage (see Genesis 12:10-20; chapter 20, especially verse 13). David acquired Bathsheba as his wife through horribly sinful means, and yet she, too, would produce the Messianic seed (Matthew 1:6). Jonah preached the most successful revival in his ministry, but with all the wrong motives. Even Moses lost his temper and thereby showed irreverence toward God, and thus was not allowed to enter the land (Numbers 20:1-12).

All of this is entirely consistent with the message of the Bible, Old Testament and New, and that is that God has chosen to deal with us (particularly believers) in grace, not as a result of our good works, but as a manifestation of His mercy and grace. This theme is highlighted in Exodus 32-34, and especially in 34:6-7:

Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 34:6-7, NAU).

The grace of God is the consistent basis for man’s appeal for mercy and grace throughout the Old Testament (see, for example, Numbers 14, see especially verses 10-24).

The fact is that God’s gracious acts are always the overflow of His mercy and grace. God does not need our good deeds in order to bless. Indeed, God’s gracious purposes often are the result of His grace in spite of our sins. Joseph’s betrayal by his brothers is but one example:

When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!” 16 So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, 17 ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. 18 Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” 19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. 21 So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:15-21).

So, now, back to Sarah. Sarah was wrong to seek an offspring through Hagar, for God was going to produce the Messianic seed through Abraham and Sarah, not Abraham and Hagar. Both Abraham and Sarah were wrong in this matter (see Genesis 15:1-6; 16:1-2; 17:10-22). We should note that while Hagar fled, this first time, from Sarah, God instructed her to return to Sarah’s abuse, promising to bless her son, Ishmael. In the end, God used Sarah’s hatred of Hagar and her son, Ishmael, to get them away, so that Isaac, yet to be born, would be the sole heir of Abraham. Sarah’s hatred toward Hagar and her son was used of God to overcome Abraham’s affection for Ishmael, and his reluctance to send him away.

Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. 10 Therefore she said to Abraham, “Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac.” 11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son. 12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named. 13 “And of the son of the maid I will make a nation also, because he is your descendant.” 14 So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulder, and gave her the boy, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba (Genesis 21:9-14).

Now, Abraham had no “backup son,” who would become the father of the promised Messianic seed when God instructed him to go up on the mountain and sacrifice his son (Genesis 22).

The underlying truths which make this possible are that God is both gracious, and sovereign, and thus man’s sin cannot prevent Him from fulfilling His purposes. Because God’s mercy is bestowed out of His grace, our good performance is not the essential element which is the basis for His blessings. In the end, it is God who rightly gets the glory.

Bob

Related Topics: Character of God, Christian Life, Hamartiology (Sin), Suffering, Trials, Persecution

Join The Theology Program's Mission Through Your Support

Why support The Theology Program at bible.org?

The primary mission of TTP is to reclaim the mind for Christ by equipping people and churches to understand and defend the Christian faith. We believe that the Church is in desperate need of theological renewal where people can understand, defend, and articulate their faith. Without truth, the Church does not stand a chance. We live in a world that is denying the very existence of truth. While there are many ministries and organizations that have a like-minded goal, we seek to accomplish this mission in a unique way—by focusing our concentration, purposes, and confidence in the theological education of lay people and making it available for free online. Our vision and mission are clear and aggressive . . . nothing less than a reclaiming of the mind for Christ across the world.

There are over 18,000 members of TTP. This has occurred in the last six months. The need for theological renewal could not be more evident. Please consider donating. By making a donation you will help support the ministry and staff of bible.org as we work continually on this mission of bringing theological training to laypeople all over the world.

Click on this link to donate by credit card. Or to donate by mail, send all donations to the address listed on the contact page. Please remember to place TTP in the memo of your check or money order.

4. Jacob: His Running and Returning: “God’s Grace In Reconciliation” (Gen. 33:1-20)

Related Media

Introduction

A documentary series that my wife and I used to watch from time to time is called “The Locator”. In these documentaries, Troy Dunn (“the locator”) tracks down and attempts to reunite families – a missing sister or brother, children given up at birth etc. There are many tragic stories, many of which have happy endings.

One happy ending was the story of a woman in the military who had a relationship with another soldier. They broke up and shortly afterward she discovered she was pregnant. Feeling that the father was too young to take on this responsibility she decided to not notify him. Subsequently, she gave birth to a boy, whose questions about his father during his growing up years she never properly answered. Finally, when her son was about 25 years old, he contacted Troy Dunn to find his father for him, which Troy did.

Watching the initial meetings of many of these estranged family members is interesting and moving to watch. Some end in disaster, like a daughter who did not want to meet her father who had abandoned her. But this one was a very positive experience for all involved. By the time they meet, the young man’s father has a wife and 3 teenage children, none of whom knew of course that he had another son because he himself didn’t know. After finding out that he had another son, he discussed the situation with his wife and children, all of whom were excited about meeting him.

On the appointed day, they all met and welcomed him with open arms as one of their family – a happy reunion. I wondered why they could so quickly and willingly and lovingly accept him, as many families do not react that way in this type of situation. But then, as the camera panned around the room in their house where they were meeting, I noticed a plaque on the wall. That plaque gave me the clue to why this family was so accepting in their reconciliation with their new son, brother, and grandson. The plaque said: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” These were Christians who knew the truth and reality of the grace of God in reconciliation. That’s our subject in this message: God’s grace in reconciliation.

We learn in our passage that reconciliation is made possible through humility and love that are rooted in God’s grace. When Jacob was at Bethel in Genesis 28, God had promised that He would give him the land on which he was lying, that He would be with Jacob and keep him wherever he went, and that He would bring him back to this land (28:13, 15). Now God fulfills that promise, directing Jacob back to Canaan, to the land of his ancestors and his family relations (31:3). So, Jacob packs up all his possessions and family that he had acquired in Paddan-aram to go back to Canaan (31:17-18).

But the past has a way of catching up with you. It caught up with Jacob at the river Jabbok (32:22-32) and it catches up with him now in our chapter. So far, he had gotten what he wanted but at a great cost - he had lost contact with his mother and he had severed his relationship with his brother, Esau. Now he must face Esau for the first time in 20 years. He could have kept running as he had before, but he didn’t. Perhaps by this time he has finally reached the end of himself and his self-sufficient, self-improving, ambitious lifestyle. Perhaps he knows that he has run out of options. Or, perhaps he intends to be obedient to God’s call to go back home and face the music whatever that might be.

After wrestling with God all night, Jacob limps across the river Jabbok and, “lifting up his eyes” he saw Esau “coming with 400 men (33:1). Clearly this sight unnerves Jacob. It seems to him that Esau is bent on exacting the vengeance he had threatened before (27:41). But, in fact that was not the case at all. Instead, Jacob receives from Esau acceptance and affection. In this meeting we see that…

I. Reconciliation Is Initiated By Inward Renewal (33:1-4)

Reconciliation is a powerful force for most people. We don’t generally like living with fractured, distant relationships. We have this inner longing for restoration, unity, happiness. The last time they were together, Jacob was so determined to get the blessing from his father, Isaac, that he went to extraordinary lengths to deceive Isaac and defraud Esau out of his birthright. As a result, Esau hated Jacob so much that he threatened to kill him (27:41).

Now they are meeting for the first time after that episode. Jacob, the offender, is about to meet Esau, the offended. What we see here in this process of reconciliation is that…

1. Reconciliation is initiated by a renewed attitude (33:1-3). Up to now, Jacob hadn’t worried about meeting Esau again. He could patch things up - he could buy him off with presents. After all, he is wealthy now as 32:1-5 indicate. But when he sees Esau approaching with a small army, Jacob is clearly suspicious about what to expect. So, not knowing how this will turn out, in addition to the earlier division of his entire company (32:7), he now also divides up his family into four – (1) the two servants with their children in front; then (2) Leah with her children; and (3) Rachel (his favorite) and Joseph at the rear, the place of greatest safety; and (4) Jacob “himself went on before them” (33:3a). Notice that previously Jacob had stayed behind (32:16, 18), but now he takes the lead. He is living up to his new name, “Israel” – he is a leader now, leading the way and protecting his family.

Jacob didn’t know what was in Esau’s heart and Esau didn’t know what to expect from Jacob. But quickly it became apparent that both brothers longed for reconciliation – both the offender and the offended. We need to appreciate the enormity of this moment - two brothers meeting for the first time after 20 years of estrangement. This is a climactic moment! How will it turn out? What will happen? Thankfully, this time, Jacob is not out to defraud his bother. Rather, he takes the low place, “bowing himself to the ground seven times until he came near his brother” (33:3b).

While no words are exchanged at this point, the brothers’ actions speak louder than words. Taking the low place is the best attitude you can take in the process of reconciliation. “Bowing” here (and in vv. 6 and 7) is an act of contrition and repentance. Previously Jacob had taken the high place when he defrauded his older brother out of his birthright, but now Jacob takes the low place before Esau. Previously, Isaac had told Jacob that “nations would bow down to him” (27:29), but now Jacob bows down to Esau. He is not used to bowing down to others but he had to bow down to God - first at Bethel and then at the river Jabbok. And now, he bows before Esau as a slave to his master. This is a radically renewed attitude. This is humility, submission. More than that it’s contrition and repentance - the lesser bowing before the greater; the servant to his lord.

Jacob surely is a changed man. His encounter with God at the Jabbok seems to have changed him spiritually and physically. His permanent limp prevents him from ever running again. It reminds him that he has met God face to face. Now he is a changed man with a new identity – no longer Jacob but Israel (32:28). Accordingly, he takes a new posture before Esau, demonstrating inward renewal in a new attitude. A new of attitude is a prerequisite for reconciliation, changing from dominance to subservience, from taking away (his deceit) to giving back (in the gifts).

Words do not express what actions can and do. “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger (Prov. 15:1). While some people find regret and repentance hard to express in words, it is even harder to express in actions. To bow down literally or metaphorically before someone whom we have offended and take that low place is hard. It strikes hard against our pride and self-justification. The question in Jacob’s mind must surely have been: “How will Esau react? Will he now carry out his threat to kill me?”

First, then, reconciliation is initiated by a renewed attitude…

2. Reconciliation is initiated by a renewed heart (33:4). Jacob has no idea how Esau will react. Indeed he has every reason to think that this meeting is not going to go well. Perhaps Esau would try to exact revenge by harming Jacob’s family or taking his possessions as recompense for the birthright he had lost before. It sure looked that way to him. Perhaps Esau still wants to prove his entitlement to their father’s blessing as the older son. Perhaps 20 years had reinforced and exacerbated Esau’s hatred and desire for revenge. But, by God’s grace, such is not the case.

In fact, instead of evil intent, Esau expresses affection, an eagerness for reunion, unconditional acceptance, a spontaneous act of vulnerability in a renewed heart. Esau is not out for revenge and certainly not murder. Rather, he demonstrates unqualified affection for his long lost brother (33:4).

Notice the contrast between the greetings of these two brothers. Jacob greets Esau like a servant to his master, but Esau greets Jacob like a brother to his brother. First, he “ran to meet Jacob,” this in contrast to Jacob’s limp. There is an evident eagerness in Esau to meet Jacob. His running to Jacob contrasts with Jacob’s slow approach, bowing himself to the ground. Second, he “embraced Jacob,” in contrast Jacob just “came near” (33:3). Third, Esau “fell on his neck and kissed Jacob,” an ironical reminder of how Jacob had kissed Isaac (27:27). Lastly, “they wept.” This is genuine affection on display, a softness of heart, a demonstration of true reconciliation.

A changed attitude and a changed heart - both of which changes are necessary for reconciliation to take place. The heart is the centre of our emotions and Jesus said that “out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murder…” (Matt. 15:19). That’s where broken relationships start – in the heart. Violent emotions that go unchecked can lead to behavior as egregious as murder.

So, what about your heart? If you are a Christian and you hold bitter feelings against someone, then you need to examine your own heart first. Whenever we experience fractured relationships we need to ensure that we are not holding bitterness in our own hearts, because bitterness eats away like a cancer, which if untreated can kill you - spiritually and emotionally. “See that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springs up and causes trouble and by it many become defiled” (Heb. 12:15). Bitterness manifests itself in your attitude to others. Bitterness not only eats away at you on the inside but it affects everyone else around you as well. As believers we are united through the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is grieved and his work among us is quenched when our relationships are severed or distant or bitter. I know that reconciliation with someone who has hurt you or whom you have hurt is not easy, because it’s not easy to take the low place. So, I’m not trivializing the process of reconciliation – it includes repentance, confession, forgiveness, and trust. But, what I’m saying is that the process starts with you – with your attitude and your heart.

Apparently Esau has a renewed heart. He has dealt with his bitter feelings against Jacob. His thoughts of murder have changed to feelings of affection. Instead of anger, he exudes warmth and love, embracing and kissing Jacob. The tension is released and “they wept” together. There is nothing quite like love and tears to bring down the walls of disagreement and separation. Tears are good for your own soul. They somehow ameliorate the hurt and sadness and bitterness.

First, then, reconciliation is initiated by inward renewal – renewal of one’s attitude and renewal of one’s heart. Second…

II. Reconciliation Is Expressed In Outward Actions (33:5-20)

1. Reconciliation is expressed by acknowledging God’s grace (33:5-7). Rarely is personal reconciliation limited to one-on-one. Usually it involves others, typically family members. Here Esau extends grace to the entire family. “When Esau lifted up his eyes and saw the women and children he said, ‘Who are these with you?’” (33:5a).

Esau takes the initiative to inquire about the rest of Jacob’s family in this act of reconciliation: “Who are these with you?” This is a very normal question when meeting family members for the first time, especially in the context of reconciliation. Jacob replies, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant” (33:5b). Jacob still does not address Esau as his brother, preferring to emphasize his subservience to him, retaining a formal master and servant relationship. Is this because he felt awkward, embarrassed? Or, is this because he wants to emphasize his change of attitude, no longer seeking to dominate but to serve. Importantly, he attributes his family to a gift of God’s grace. That is exactly what it was – a gift of God’s grace.

One by one the various parties in Jacob’s large family draw near to Esau (33:6-7). First, the servants, Bilhah and Zilpah with their children, then Leah with her children, and finally Rachel with her child, Joseph. They all “bowed down” before Esau (vv. 6, 7b) in an act of respect and family unity.

So, reconciliation is expressed in outward actions. First, reconciliation is expressed by acknowledging God’s grace. Second…

2. Reconciliation is expressed by making restitution (33:8-11). Everything that is happening seems to be overwhelming for Esau – he is flabbergasted. He can’t comprehend what’s going on: “What do you mean by all this company that I met?” (33:8a). He is dumbfounded by the extent of Jacob’s company and the massive quantity of gifts they brought from Jacob (32:13-21). It all appears to be over the top. He can’t comprehend it all. Jacob answers, “To find favor in the sight of my lord” (33:8b). “That’s what this is about, Esau - it’s about restitution. It’s about demonstrating to you that I am deeply sorry for what I did when I stole your birthright. It’s about showing you my repentance in action not just words. I want to find favor in your sight, Esau. That’s what this is about and as a show of goodwill I want to repay you.”

It appears that Jacob wants in some way to repay the blessing that he had stolen from Esau those many years ago. In a gracious response, Esau says: “I have enough, my brother, keep what you have for yourself” (33:9). Notice that Jacob calls Esau “lord” in v. 8, but Esau calls Jacob “brother” in v. 9. Esau clearly wants a closer relationship with Jacob than Jacob wants with him. “Despite what you stole from me, I am well-provided for; I don’t need or want your gifts. I have enough,” Esau replies. Esau evidently bears no revenge, wants no recompense, isn’t looking for financial reward. What he wants is a relationship with his brother.

Jacob insists: “10 No, please, if I have found favor in your sight, then accept my present from my hand. For I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God and you have accepted me. 11 Please accept my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough.” Thus he urged him (Esau), and he took it” (33:10-11). Meeting Esau is likened by Jacob to “seeing the face of God,” which he had seen before at Bethel (28:16-17) and which he had just seen again at the Jabbok (32:22-31). Thus, the blessing that he had received from God there he wants to extend now to his brother. Seeing Esau for the first time in 20 years, he sees a reflection of the grace of God in Esau’s face. Just as he sought a blessing from God at the Jabbok, so now he seeks Esau’s favor and blessing. So, in an act of pure grace, Esau accepts the gifts as a demonstration of his acceptance of his brother, as a token that all is restored between them, as a measure of goodwill. Jacob wants to find favor in Esau’s sight and to bless Esau and Esau accepts Jacob’s gifts on that basis.

Would it were so that all broken relationships were thus restored - that the offender would be so constrained to seek the favor of the offended one; that such brokenness would be manifested by all parties whose relationships have been broken; that such humility and subservience would be shown by all offenders. I appeal to any reader who has cut off someone else’s ear and heart by their behavior and words, bring it to an end now. Do what you have to do to restore the relationship. Start by showing your utter humility, shame, brokenness and your repentance for ever having caused the severance in the first place. Seek the forgiveness and favor of the other person. And pray for God’s grace to overflow into the lives of all the parties and extended families thus affected. It can be done! It has been done! It was done by Jacob and Esau. But it all starts with you - your heart and your attitude.

Reconciliation, then, is initiated by inward renewal and is expressed in outward actions. First, reconciliation is expressed by acknowledging God’s grace. Second, reconciliation is expressed by making restitution. And third…

3. Reconciliation is expressed by acting in kindness (33:12-20). Esau acts kindly in two ways. First, Esau offers to lead the way home: “Let’s journey on our way, and I will go ahead of you” (22:12). This seems to be a genuinely kind gesture by Esau - a desire to go home together, to make their reunion public to the rest of the family; his desire for togetherness, for fellowship with Jacob, a kind and practical expression of permanent reunion. But, in contrast, Jacob is not ready for this. Often there are some practical hesitations in reconciliations. Perhaps things were moving too fast for Jacob. So, he makes the excuse that the children and animals can’t walk at their pace (33:13). Jacob said to him, “14 Let my lord pass on ahead of his servant, and I will lead on slowly, at the pace of the livestock that are ahead of me and at the pace of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir” (33:14). At face value this response seems perfectly logical but there is a hint of the old Jacob here. There is a hint of his suspicion of Esau. Mistrust is very common in those who themselves have been deceptive. Whatever the reason, Jacob refuses to accept Esau’s kindness.

Second, Esau offers to provide protection (33:15): “ So Esau said, ‘Let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.’” It seems that Esau brought these 400 men with him not to attack Jacob but to protect him on his homeward journey. But Jacob said, “What need is there? Let me find favor in the sight of my lord.” Jacob doesn’t even accept Esau’s offer to have some of his people travel with Jacob and his entourage. Again Esau concedes to Jacob’s resistance. In this dialogue between the two brothers Jacob is still showing the old personality and the old self-will. Even after meeting with God, some personality and behavioral characteristics don’t immediately or easily fall away.

It seems that all along Jacob had other plans (33:16-17). So, instead of keeping his word and following behind Esau and his men at a slower pace (33:14), Jacob doesn’t follow Esau at all. 16 So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir. 17 But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house and made booths for his livestock. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth (33:16-17). Instead of going south with Esau to Seir, Jacob goes north to Succoth where he settles down, building himself a house and shelters for his livestock.

The big question is why? Why didn’t Jacob follow Esau? And why didn’t Jacob tell Esau the truth about not following him? It seems a shame that after all that has happened - after his meeting with God, after his reconciliation with Esau, after Esau’s willingness to forgive and move on with their lives - that the two brothers now go their separate ways. There are some reasonable guesses as to why. Perhaps Jacob thought that some distance between them might be good for their future relationship. That would be reasonable since some relationships - even those that have been genuinely reconciled - are better with some distance between them. The option that I think is the most likely is that God had told him to go to Canaan, not Edom (cf. 31:3). Seir where Esau lived in Edom was not his home, Canaan was. So, to follow Esau would have led him away from Canaan, the land to which God had promised to bring him back. In fact, if you trace Jacob’s route, it seems that he is headed home to Beersheba but gets waylaid at Shechem. If this is the case, then Jacob was right to not go with Esau, but the excuse he gave was deceptive and wrong (33:14).

Now, before you condemn Jacob for this, let me ask you: Have you ever done the same? Have you ever skewed the truth rather than face further conflict? Or, not revealed your true reasons in order to preserve peace? Sometimes it’s wise to not reveal everything in our hearts, but lying is not the way to do it.

What is clear is that Jacob has his own agenda (33:18-20), for eventually he moves on from Succoth and settles in Shechem where he erects an altar and calls it El-Elohe-Israel (33:20). Shechem was the place where Abraham first heard God’s promise about the land (12:6-7). Now, Shechem is where Jacob settles, which, as chapter 34 reveals, turns out to be a bad move. Yes, he is back in Canaan, the land of his ancestors but not in Beersheba among his family as God had directed him (31:3).

Final Remarks

In this meeting between Jacob and Esau we see two dramatically changed men. In Jacob, humility replaces arrogance, submission replaces dominance, and giving replaces taking (as in the birthright and blessing). In Esau, compassion replaces murder, warmth replaces coldness, and acceptance replaces rejection. Wrestling with God at the Jabbok changed Jacob and Esau has changed as well. And by His grace, God can change us too - our character, our attitude, our hearts, and our actions. Jacob’s character was changed from a deceiver to a leader. Jacob’s attitude was changed from arrogance to dependence. Jacob’s heart was changed from self-ambition to submission. And Esau’s character was changed from murder to affection. Esau’s attitude was changed from coldness to warmth. Esau’s heart was changed from hardness to softness.

Has this happened in your life? Most importantly, have you been reconciled to God by the death of his Son? That’s the grace of God in action for sinners who believe (Rom. 5:10). We see this being lived out by Jacob who now attributes everything to God’s grace – his children (33:5) and his wealth (33:11). Note that just as he desperately sought and received God’s blessing so now he seeks and receives Esau’s blessing. By God’s grace, Jacob sees Esau now, not as a brother to be extorted but a brother who reflects the grace of God: “For I have seen your face which is like seeing the face of God” (33:10). Though traces of the old Jacob still remain, by God’s grace Jacob finds his way home to Canaan and settles there.

So, on the one hand, this episode leaves us on a high note - the twin brothers are reconciled and Jacob, the one who ran away, comes back to his homeland with a new identity and a new dependence on God. But on the other hand, this episode leaves us a little uneasy. Jacob has once more separated from Esau and the future in Shechem is not bright. In fact, it will be a massive low point in Jacob’s life.

On this note, we come to the end of the Paddan-aram episode in Jacob’s life. Notice that this episode is bookended by two altars. It started at Bethel where he set up an altar of stones to commemorate that wonderful meeting with God in a vision: “Surely the Lord is in this place and I did not know it… How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (28:16-17). Now in Shechem, he builds another altar which he calls El-Elohe-Israel, the ever-faithful God of his fathers is Israel’s God. The God he had met at Bethel and again at the river Jabbok is indeed his God.

If you were asked to choose which of Esau and Jacob is the hero of this episode, who would it be? Jacob? Amazingly, I don’t think so. I think it is Esau! Who would have guessed how Esau would have received Jacob back into his life as he did, reunited with his twin brother after all those years and all that animosity. In this we see the grace of God in reconciliation…

I. Reconciliation is initiated by inward renewal (33:1-4)

1. Initiated by a renewed attitude (33:1-3)

2. Initiated by a renewed heart (33:4)

II. Reconciliation is expressed in outward actions (33:5-11)

1. … by acknowledging God’s grace (5-7)

2. … by making restitution (8-11)

3. … by acting in kindness (12-20)

Remember our thesis: Reconciliation is made possible through humility and love that are rooted in God’s grace. In this we also learn that God is sovereign. He works out his purposes regardless of our failures. He keeps his promises despite our foolishness.

Related Topics: Character Study, Christian Life

Q. Should pastors really stop giving altar calls?

I read your article on why pastors should stop giving alter calls. Should we really do that no matter what the sermon is about?

Answer

Dear Brother *****,

Thanks for your email. While I have written a number of articles, I do not remember writing that one should not give an altar call. It may well have been one of our other (many) authors on bible.org.

In the church we attended while I was in seminary the primary teacher was sure to give a kind of invitation at the end of every message. I think that is a very good thing to do. All of our teaching and preaching should be tied closely to the gospel.

Having said this, we also need to be careful not to forget: Aside from “He who has ears, let him hear. . .”, Jesus did not give an invitation as such. He challenged his audience to think about what He had said. He clearly called on His disciples to follow Him, but He also discouraged others by urging them to count the cost. Jesus did not water down His teaching to attract followers.

Now when you get to Paul and his presentation in the synagogues and elsewhere, it is all about the gospel, and he does challenge his listeners to believe in Jesus. (He does not call on folks to come forward, as is often the case with us today.)

Paul makes it very clear in 1 Corinthians chapter three that evangelism is not a solo, one-time, event. One sows, another waters, and another harvests. Thus, our presentation of the gospel may be one part of the process that God uses to save the lost.

Thus, any invitation needs to keep the above things in mind.

One additional thought came to mind, which is important. The primary purpose of the church meeting is the edification of the saints, to equip them for the work of ministry (see Ephesians 4). It is apparent from 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul assumed some unbelievers might be present, and he was concerned that the gospel would be clear to them.

One possible danger is that because the pastor gives a brief gospel message with an invitation, that some might wrongly conclude that further evangelistic effort is not as important. That would be the opposite of equipping the saints for the work of ministry, which would surely include sharing the gospel. Any evangelistic efforts from the pulpit should serve to encourage all the saints to share their faith, rather than to “let the Pastor do it.” Every pastor should be clear in his mind that his primary objective is to teach the saints, moving them toward maturity, while reaching the lost is a secondary (but very important) task (see Hebrews 6:1-3).

Blessings,

Bob Deffinbaugh

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church)

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 44, Summer 2022

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching:
Preaching N.T. Gospels, Pt. 3, Parables

Parables are not exclusive to the Gospels. Nathan, for example, used a parable to alert David to his sin (2 Sam. 12:1-10). Isaiah used a parable to indict the house of Israel (Isa. 5:1-7. Note that the parable is found in Isa. 5:1-6 and the application in Isa. 5:7). However, for the purposes of this article, I will deal with parables as a subgenre of “gospel.”

1. Definition And Structure Of Parables. A parable is a short story in which certain everyday experiences and characters represent certain moral or spiritual truths. Jesus frequently used parables to make a point. Typically, a parable begins by describing events or characters in a particular situation, and ends with a direct application or explanation of the story such that the hearers recognize its relevance to their lives. That’s why you often find strong negative reactions to Jesus’ parables, because they touch the consciences of the hearers.

2. Literary Forms Of Parables. In simple terms, a parable is a form of figurative language. Let me make the following distinctions…

(1) “True” Parables. By “true” parables I mean parables that follow the structure and definition that I have outlined above. Examples of “true” parables are: (1) The good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37); (2) The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (Lk. 15:1-32); (3) The great supper (Lk. 14:15-24); (4) The laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16); (5) The rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31); (6) The ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13).

(2) Similes. Some parables take the form of extended similes where the subject and the thing with which it is being compared are distinct from one another and made explicit by using comparisons such as “like” or “as” - e.g. “The kingdom of heaven is like…” (Matt. 13:44-46). Examples of parables in the form of extended similes are: (1) Leaven in the meal (Matt. 13:33); (2) The sower (Matt. 13:1-23); (3) The mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32).

(3) Metaphors. Some parables have features of an extended metaphor, in which, unlike an extended simile, the comparison between the subject and the thing with which it is being compared are implicit and inseparable – e.g. “You are the salt of the earth… You are the light of the world,” (Matt. 5:13-14). While it could be argued that such statements are simply metaphors (and that would be true), nonetheless, in the context in which they are used I think it fair to classify some as having parabolic features in their structure and purpose.

3. The Purpose Of Parables. Despite the apparent simplicity of the parable form and content, there has been a lot of debate over what they mean. And indeed, there are parables which are difficult to understand, such as the parable of the dishonest business manager (Lk. 16:1-13). We read a story like that and ask ourselves: “What exactly did Jesus mean? Is he really commending the man’s dishonesty? Or, is there more to this story than initially meets the eye?” Even the disciples themselves questioned what some of Jesus’ parables meant (Mk. 4:10; Lk. 8:9).

Unfortunately, Jesus’ explanation of the significance of parables is itself a difficult statement to understand: “The secret of the kingdom has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven’” (Mk. 4:11-12; quoting Isa. 6:9-10). While this statement does not necessarily imply that this was the purpose for all Jesus’ parables, it does explain why he used some parables to present the divine secret concerning the nature of the kingdom of God, a secret whose meaning is revealed to those with divine life but withheld from those who adamantly refuse the truth.

Perhaps Jesus’ explanation is better understood in the context that his ministry had two diametrically opposite effects. As the apostle Paul puts it, for some hearers Jesus’ message in the parables was the “aroma of life leading to life” but for others the “aroma of death leading to death” (2 Cor. 2:14-16). Or, as the apostle Peter puts it, for “you who believe” Jesus is presented in the parables as “the stone that the builders rejected – the One who has become the cornerstone” but for unbelievers He is “a stone to stumble over, and a rock to trip over” (1 Pet. 2:7-8). In other words, Jesus’ parables forced people to take sides. You were either for him or against him. This was clearly the effect of many parables – they divided the people and in so doing revealed the truth of their hearts. As, Moises Silva points out, “The parables…when addressed to those who have set themselves against the Lord, become instruments of judgement. Thereby, ‘whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him’ (Mk. 4:25).” (Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 111).

Parables, then, serve the purpose of discriminating between those who heard Jesus - on the one hand to obscure the truth from those who rejected his words, and on the other hand to clarify the truth for those who responded positively to his words. For those who responded positively to his words, Jesus’ parables revealed God, his truth and his purposes for his people. For those who rejected Jesus and his words, parables were used by Jesus as instruments of judgement and a means of concealing the truth from them (e.g. Matt. 13:10-15; Mk. 4:11-12; Lk. 8:9-10). As Henry Virkler puts it: “The same parables that brought insight to faithful believers were without meaning to those who were hardening their hearts against the truth” (Virkler, Hermeneutics, 165). This is a similar teaching to 1 Corinthians 2 concerning the ability of the regenerate person to understand spiritual truth compared to the inability of the unregenerate person. The difference is that one has spiritual sight and the other is spiritually blind. Thus, parables have two objectives, or focal points – first to believers and second to unbelievers.

The purpose of parables is twofold: (1) to instruct the hearers about spiritual truths such as prayer, giving, etc. (e.g. Matt. 13:10-12; Mk. 4:11), and (2) to challenge them about improper, sinful, or hypocritical living (e.g. Lk. 7:36-50). In general, the purpose of parables is to reveal the truth about the listeners’ character and identity – who and what they are.

4. The Nature Of Parables. Probably the characteristic of parables that explains why Jesus used them so much in his teaching is that they were simple interesting stories about everyday life, which ordinary people could understand, with which they could identify, and from which they could learn.

Parables, therefore, reveal, clarify, emphasize, and apply spiritual truth to both the heart and conscience. The nature of parables is such that they make an impression on people’s minds and consciences which is far more dramatic, effective, and enduring than merely stating the point - e.g. the persistent widow and the unjust judge (Lk. 18:1-8), or the Pharisee and the publican (Lk. 18:9-14).

The nature of parables, then, is that they are a true-to-life short stories about familiar situations, persons, and events that compare one situation, person, or event to another in order to illustrate, illuminate, and teach an unfamiliar or unrecognized but important spiritual truth. By their nature, parables are indirect and demand a response from the hearers.

5. Understanding And Interpreting Parables. The parable is the message. It is told to address and capture the hearers, to bring them up short about their own actions, or to cause them to respond in some way to Jesus and his ministry. It is this feature that makes interpretation of parables difficult because it is somewhat like interpreting a joke - if you have to interpret it, it fails to be funny and intuitively obvious. As with the immediate appeal of a joke, the hearers of parables would have had an immediate identification with the points of reference that caused them to get the point of the parable.

Since we may not immediately get the point because of our distance from the time, culture, and language of the parables, they do not function in quite the same way for us as they did for the original hearers. However, by interpreting the parables properly we can understand what they understood.

Generally, the interpretation and application of the story comes at the end of the parable and is distinct from the story itself. For example, Luke 7:40-42, the three points of reference are: the money lender and the two debtors. The identification is immediate: (1) God is like the money lender; (2) the harlot and Simon are like the two debtors. The parable is a word of judgement calling for a response from Simon. The force of the parable is such that Simon could not miss the point. It should be noted that the points of reference themselves do not constitute the parable. They serve only to draw hearers into the story and to provide a point of reference with whom or with which they are identified. The point of the story is in the intended response. In this instance, a word of judgement to Simon and his friends and a word of acceptance and forgiveness to the woman.

Remember that all of Jesus’ parables are, in some way, the means Jesus chose to describe and proclaim the kingdom. Hence, we must be very familiar with the meaning of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus.

6. Guidelines For Researching And Interpreting Parables. When the parables were first spoken they rarely needed interpretation since their point was intuitively obvious to the hearers. But because we were not there and because they are only in written form, we lack the immediate understanding of some of the points of reference that the original hearers had. Through the exegetical process, however, we can discover their point with a high degree of accuracy. What we need to do is translate that point into our own context (as Matthew did – e.g. 18:10-14; 20:1-16). One way you can do this in your preaching is to insert into the story contextually and hermeneutically appropriate contemporary points of reference.

While all the normal, traditional exegetical tools, procedures, and principles must be used in studying the parables in their context in order to deduce authorial intent, the parable genre seems to be so fluid, to have such variety, and to contain such multiple levels of meaning that they leave a great deal of flexibility in preaching. We should remember that our congregations today love the parable stories and usually find them as fascinating as the original audiences undoubtedly did. This underscores the power of narrative.

The golden rule (as with all exegetical research in preparation for preaching) is to not make the parables mean something that they were not intended to mean. This is a common mistake in interpreting parables – namely, trying to make every detail have a parallel alternative meaning (i.e. to allegorize your interpretation). The problem with allegorization as an interpretive method is that it is so subjective. Ten different people could come up with ten different meanings for each detail. A general rule for understanding and preaching parables is that, as a pastor friend of mine used to say, we should not try “to make parables walk on all fours” – i.e. not try to assign meaning to every little detail unless it is obvious from the parable itself.

Furthermore, allegorization, by trying to assign meaning to every little detail, often misses the overall point of the parable. In order to counter the allegorization method of interpretation, some scholars allege that each parable only has one point and that the details are merely narrative window dressing. But this is surely an oversimplification. For example, in the parable of the prodigal son, do not the son, the father, and the older brother each represent a different person? Parables can make a single point or multiple points, just as they can have multiple purposes, forms, and applications. However, though a parable may have multiple points of reference, each parable (like any other passage of Scripture) only has one theological point or principle that it is conveying.

7. A Balanced Approach To Interpreting Parables (adapted from Craig Blomberg, cited in Duval and Hays, 260f.).

(a) Look for the main point for each main character. All other details merely enhance the story. For example, in the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32), the prodigal son clearly represents sinners who turn to God in repentance and faith. The father represents God’s willingness to extend mercy and forgiveness. The older brother represents religious people – the Pharisees and scribes to whom Jesus was addressing the parable (Lk. 15:2), who think they alone are worthy of God’s grace.

Again, in the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:29-37), the man beaten by a robber represents the neighbor in need (this is the subject that Jesus is addressing, Lk. 10:29). The priest and Levite represent religious leaders whom you would expect to love their “neighbors” unconditionally but who may not truly do so. The Samaritan represents those whom you would not expect to love their “neighbors” with a different religious and cultural background but who may actually do so in a practical and public way.

(b) Determine the main point that the original audience would have understood. Do not read or interpret parables in isolation from what is going on around them. Check their literary context carefully. Invariably Jesus’ parables illustrate what was going on in the immediately foregoing issue or circumstance.

When trying to determine the main point of a parable, it is helpful to ask yourself some questions, like: (1) What response is being called for and generated? (2) Is there a surprise, a twist, a shock in the narrative? (3) How or what does the parable teach us about the kingdom – either directly or indirectly? (4) What is the Christological and theological focus and teaching? (5) What type of parable is it - a true parable, a simile, or a metaphor? (6) What are the various scenes and movements of the parable? (7) Who is the audience? (8) Who are the prime characters and whom do they represent? (9) What is the central theological point?

8. Some Further Hints for Interpreting Parables.

(1) Listen to the parable over and over. Identify the points of reference that would have been picked up by Jesus’ hearers. Try to determine how the original hearers would have identified with the story - what they would have heard and how they would have interpreted and applied it. Sometimes the meaning is stated explicitly in the parable; other times it is implied through the application (cf. Matt. 5:13; 18:21, 35; 29:1-16; 22:14; 25:13; Lk. 12:15-21; 15:7, 10; 18:1, 9; 19:11).

(2) Examine the context carefully. As with all solid interpretive methodology, examine carefully the context of each parable from the perspective that the writer has chosen to present his material. For example, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16) comes immediately after the story of the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16-22). After making the point that riches can be a great obstacle to entry into the kingdom, Peter says: “See, we have left everything and followed you. So what will there be for us?” (Lk. 19:27). Jesus assures Peter that they will receive their due reward (Lk. 19:28-30), but follows that assurance with this parable about the “landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard” (Matt. 20:1), in which parable Jesus rebukes Peter’s self-righteous attitude: “See what we have done for you Jesus, how much we have given up for you…” Peter was talking like the laborers in the vineyard who thought they were entitled to more pay than those who had not worked as long as they had, rather than being content with serving Christ out of love. That’s the perspective from which the writer has chosen to present this parable.

First, look at the historical and cultural context – its specific setting. For example, Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son specifically to reprove the scribes and Pharisees who murmured against him, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Lk. 15:1-2). Then, Jesus tells the parable in which the Pharisees and scribes are portrayed as those who “complain rather than rejoice when a sinner is ‘found’…The point to appreciate is the role of the elder son, whose only brother – not one in hundred or even one in ten – had been lost. This elder son represents the grumbling Pharisees, who seem unable to share in the joy of God and the angels of heaven” (Moises Silva, 112-113).

Understanding the cultural context requires that we study the first century customs so that we understand the impact of what is being said and done. For example, when the prodigal son requested that his father give him his portion of the inheritance, he was asking for something that normally does not take place until the father’s death. By doing so he is inferring that he wished his father dead. Understanding this makes the father’s love and grace in receiving this son back the more remarkable.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership
“The Ministry Of Reconciliation, Pt. 4 (Continued): An Appeal For The Reconciliation Of God’s People To God’s Minister” (2 Cor. 6:11-7:16)

We continue with this passage again in this edition of The Net Pastors Journal. Last time, we covered 2 Cor. 6:11-18 in which we addressed the first two sections of the passage:

1. A pastoral appeal of love (6:11-13).

2. A pastoral appeal of admonition (6:14-18).

Now we continue with the third section…

3. The Application of the Pastoral Appeal (7:1-4). “So then...” (drawing a conclusion from what has just been said), based on the promises contained in the O.T. (6:16-18) that God will be their Father, restoring His people to their proper relationship with him, if (notice that the promises are conditional) they separate themselves from evil (viz. pagan religious practices; in particular, idol worship) then Paul’s injunction is: “So then, dear friends, since we have these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from every impurity of the flesh and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (7:1).

For Paul, the overriding principle of holiness among God's people is that we “not be yoked together with those who do not believe” (6:14), and the practice of such holiness among God's people is that we “cleanse ourselves from every impurity of the flesh and spirit” (7:1). The principle is that “the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? (1 Cor. 6:9-10). God's people have been “washed…sanctified…justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11) and are, therefore, in principle and in standing cleansed “from every impurity of the flesh and spirit..”

The principle must be evident in their practice in order for it to be true of them. In other words, positional sanctification must be demonstrated in practical sanctification. We have been sanctified by God – that’s positional sanctification (e.g. Acts 26:18; Heb. 10:14; 13:12; 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 5:26; Jn. 17:17) - and we must sanctify ourselves – that’s progressive, practical sanctification (1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:15; ) so that our union with Christ becomes more and more evident and real in our lives. Having been freed from the bondage of sin (Rom. 6:11-18) and able now not to sin (1 Jn. 3:9), God works in us (1 Thess. 5:23; Tit. 2:14) so that we become more and more like Christ (2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 13:20-21; 1 Jn. 2:6; 3:7). The Holy Spirit particularly is the divine agent active in our sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3; 2Thess. 2:13; Gal. 5:16-18, 22-23).

There is no conflict here in the twin concepts of passive and active sanctification. Not only is sanctification a work of God in us by which we are sanctified, set apart, called saints, holy ones (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), and not only has God in Christ granted us sanctification (Rom. 1:30; 2 Thess. 2:13), but also we sanctify ourselves, striving to avoid sin (1 Cor. 6:18; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Jn. 3:6-9), seeking to practise what God declares to be true of us (1 Cor. 7:34; 1 Thess. 4:3-8; Rom. 6:19), and desiring to be more like Christ (Rom. 8:13; Heb. 12:1; Phil. 2:12; 3:13-14; 2 Pet. 1:5ff.).

The “impurity” (defilement, filthiness) that results from being “yoked together with those who do not believe” (specifically, in the worship of other gods) is total in that it defiles both the “flesh and spirit.” Therefore, the “cleansing” that is consequently required of the “flesh” (physical, outward cleansing - who we are on the outside) and the “spirit” (spiritual, internal cleansing - who we are on the inside) is also total.

“Bringing holiness to completion” certainly implies that our sanctification is progressive as we strive here and now toward holiness, all the while understanding that the perfection of holiness will only be actually experienced at our glorification. But even though the ultimate completion of this sanctifying process will take place in the eschaton (1 Thess. 3:13; Jude 24; 2 Cor. 11:2), nonetheless we still continue striving now to bring that process to completion. Again, the use of the phrase “bringing to completion” indicates that this is something that we must do for ourselves. As it applies to the Corinthians, they must perfect their holiness by separating themselves from any defilement by, or association with, unbelievers - specifically, but not limited to, idol worship.

Just as “the fear of God” was one of the motivating factors in Paul’s ministry (5:11; cf. 1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 7:11), so it ought to be one of the primary factors in motivating God's people to holiness – “to cleanse ourselves from every impurity of the flesh and spirit.” We live under God's all-seeing and all-knowing gaze. We cannot escape his scrutiny and judgement.

Continuing his flow of thought from 6:11-12, Paul continues with his pastoral appeal to the Corinthians. “Make room for us in your hearts. We have wronged no one, corrupted no one, taken advantage of no one” (7:2). He pleads with them to “make room in their hearts” for him. He had brought them the good news of the gospel in the first place, so their hearts should be open to him and, conversely, shut to the false apostles (who were gaining an influence over them) and the unbelievers whose pagan practices they were adopting (David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 344). After all, there was nothing on his part that would cause them to act towards him the way they had. Despite his harsh rebukes and strong directives, he had not wronged anyone, he had not corrupted anyone, or cheated anyone. So, why would they treat him this way; why would they close him out?

“I don’t say this to condemn you, since I have already said that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together” (7:3). Paul wants to be sure that they do not misconstrue his statement of defence in 7:2. Someone reading it, especially in the spiritual condition of the Corinthians, might infer that Paul was not defending himself but accusing them. Hence, he clarifies his statement with, “I don’t say this to condemn you” and he reconfirms his love for them, “you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together.” He wants no misunderstanding on this.

The expression “to die together and to live together” could be translated “so that we die together with a view to (“εις” in Greek) living together.” Thus this is really a purpose statement in which Paul may have in mind here either a reference to his and their present Christian experience and devotedness (i.e. dying with Christ and living in and for Christ), or perhaps he is referring to their common future when they will die together as believers in Christ and be raised together in their common destiny of living together in heaven with Christ, such is the closeness to them that he wants to communicate to them.

“I am very frank with you; I have great pride in you. I am filled with encouragement; I am overflowing with joy in all our afflictions” (7:4). This verse could be construed as either the last verse of this excursus (2:14-7:4) or the first verse of the next section (7:4-16) which is a continuation from 2:13 concerning finding Titus and hearing his report about them. Rather than trying to decide where the verse fits, it is probably safer to consider 7:4 a hinge verse ending the one section and beginning the next since it relates nicely to both. It concludes Paul’s positive reinforcement of his attitude toward them (7:3) and it introduces his positive reaction to Titus’ report (7:5-16), which, in turn, relates back to the opening of the epistle (2:2-3 cf. 7:4, 13).

His former boldness of speech toward them (redressing them on various issues) had brought about the godly repentance and corrective action that he wanted and that was needed (7:9-10). Thus, his forthright speech for their rebuke and correction had achieved its intended result and produces now his “pride” in them. His boldness of speech that could have severed their relationship permanently (for no one likes being corrected) in fact turned out well through their positive response so that now he is able and delights to boast about them. Indeed, he is “filled with encouragement…overflowing with joy” even in (and despite) “all our afflictions.” The afflictions that he refers to are evidently what he encountered in Macedonia when he went there looking for Titus (7:5).

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: The Gospel According to Jesus (Matt. 7:13-14)

Subject: Two roads to eternity.

Theme: You must choose the narrow, hard way of truth if you want to enter into God’s kingdom.

Point 1: One road starts easy but ends hard (7:13).

1a) It starts easy because the entrance is wide and the road is spacious.

1b) It ends hard because its destination is eternal destruction.

Point 2: The other road starts hard but ends easy (7:14).

2a) It starts hard because the entrance is narrow and the road is difficult.

2b) It ends easy because its destination is eternal life.

Related Topics: Pastors

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 45, Fall 2022

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching: Preaching N.T. Gospels, Pt. 4

While preaching N.T. narrative is not nearly as complex from a homiletical standpoint as preaching O.T. narrative, there are still some pitfalls, which sound hermeneutical principles and homiletical methodology will help us avoid.

1. Text Selection. As with any text selection, always preach a complete unit of thought within its context and in line with what the original author intended to communicate. I recommend preaching through entire books of the Bible, rather than picking and choosing unrelated passages each week. In this regard, it is a good practice to write out the structure of the entire book. This gives you a road map for where you are going with your series of sermons and where each unit of thought starts and stops.

Since the Gospels are a collection of episodes, one way to find units of thought in them is to look for a change of place, change of audience, change of message or activity. Those are good indicators of the beginning and end of a unit of thought. Another approach is to ask yourself whether the passage you have selected has a specific, complete, and clear theme within its context.

Generally, it is best to preach an entire unit of thought in one sermon. But, if a unit of thought is too large to cover in one sermon, you might be wise…

Either: To subdivide the entire narrative into episodes and connect each episode to the previous one as you preach them.

Or: To highlight the main points in the passage

Or: To preach the message of the entire episode based on one particular verse or a few verses that encapsulate the idea of the entire passage.

However you decide to preach a unit of thought (whether as a whole or in smaller segments), be careful to still interpret and preach it in a way that is consistent with that entire section of the book and the larger framework of the book as a whole. This is where a structural outline of the book will stand you in good stead.

2. Sermon Series. In some cases, the Gospels can be broken down into separate sermon series very nicely – e.g. …

(1) The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).

(2) The three “sevens” of John’s gospel…

a) Seven significant dialogues (discourses) - Jn. 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:53-8:11; 13:1-17; 18:33-19:11; 20:1-31; 21:15-25.

b) Seven supernatural deeds (miracles) – Jn. 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 5:1-47; 6:1-14; 6:16-21; 9:1-41; 11:1-44.

c) Seven self-declarations (“I am” statements) – Jn. 6:22-71; 8:12; 10:1-9; 10:10-18; 11:25-27; 14:1-6; 15:1-6.

This way, you can be faithful to the intent of the author but not feel obligated to preach the whole book.

As with any series which doesn’t necessarily follow the author’s sequence, care must be taken to still interpret and apply these messages in accordance with the Gospel as a whole. Goldsworthy suggests that “the structure of the Gospel should at least be in our thinking when planning a series. The series might aim to highlight this structure by showing the succession of emphases and critical points. A series on a group of parables or miracles should bring out their function in the overall plan and purposes of the Gospel” (Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 231).

3. Articulating the Theme. Narratives have themes, just as didactic passages do. The theme of a text is a statement that expresses the entire theological point of the passage, usually in a single sentence. The theme statement (sometimes called a propositional statement) of a unit of thought then directs the development of the sermon, keeping it consistent with the theme of the selected passage and the theme of the Gospel as a whole. Sometimes the Gospel writers explicitly state the point of a narrative (e.g. Lk. 16:13; Lk. 19:10).

4. The Gospel Narrative Sermon Structure. As with other genres, it is a good principle to structure your sermons in Gospel narratives in a way that respects the literary form of the text such that the literary form shapes your sermon form. Just as every biblical passage has structure, so our sermons must have structure. The structure of the text dictates the structure of the sermon. Thus, just as the form (in this case, narrative form) of the text controls the structure of the text, so the form of the text controls the structure of the sermon. As with other narratives in the Bible, Gospel narratives derive their structure from the “movements’ (or, “scenes”) in the text.

Whatever approach you decide to take in preaching Gospel narratives (including parables), I recommend that you structure your sermons in the same way that you structure any other expository sermon – i.e. with a theme statement that summarizes the narrative as a whole and a sermon outline that expresses the theological points of the narrative as it progresses.

5. Suggestions for Preaching Parables. There are different ways in which you could preach parables such as:

(1) Grouping them by type - e.g. …

(a) Evangelistic parables (e.g. Matt. 7:24-27).

(b) Life in the kingdom parables (e.g. Matt. 13:1-9; Matt. 13:24-30).

(c) Eschatological parables (e.g. Matt. 25 :1-13).

(2) Grouping them by a common theme - e.g. …

a) One’s preparation for eternity - as in the rich farmer (Luke 12:16-21) and the dishonest manager (Lk. 16:1-13).

b) God’s joy in saving lost people - as in the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (Lk. 15:1-32).

(3) Parallel and contrasting parables – that is, parables with a common subject told from different perspectives. For example, the subject of serving God with the spiritual resources he has given us – e.g. …

a) The ten servants and the ten minas (Lk. 19:11-27).

b) The three servants and the talents (Matt. 25:14-30).

Your overall approach to preaching parables should be to duplicate the original intention of the parable (i.e. to illustrate a particular need or issue) by firstly drawing the audience into the story (i.e. by clarifying their understanding of the parable), and then applying the point of the story to your audience by exposing a contemporary equivalent need or issue with the intent of provoking an appropriate response.

Here are some helpful questions to ask yourself when preparing a sermon on a parable:

(1) What is the overall point / thrust of the parable?

(2) What new perspective or truth does it expose?

(3) Who is the audience - the disciples, the crowd, the religious leaders?

(4) When and how do the hearers see themselves in the story and what reaction does it produce in them?

(5) What literary device does it use? Is it allegorical or metaphorical in its structure and, if so, what is its purpose?

(6) Does the parable present a contrast or comparison? If so, what is the contrast or comparison about and what is its purpose?

(7) What aspect of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God does the parable address?

(8) What are the interpretive challenges in the parable?

(9) What are the progressive scenes in the parable that help you structure your sermon? For example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31) develops through two contrasting scenes and discourses:

(i) The contrast of earthly lifestyles (19-21) and eternal destinies (22-23).

(ii) The contrast of eternal rewards and realities (24-31)

Another example is the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32) which develops through four scenes:

(i) The division of the inheritance and departure to a far country (11-13a).

(ii) The plunge into poverty and ignominy (13b-16).

(iii) The realization and return (17-21).

(iv) The repentance and reception (22-32).

(10) How is the story of the parable relevant to your contemporary audience?

After doing all your exegetical and hermeneutical work, start to prepare your sermon. There is great flexibility in form and style for preaching parables. All the options available for preaching narratives apply to preaching parables since they are a subset of narratives, progressing from the setting, to the problem, to the climax, to the resolution.

Given the complexity of parables (i.e. their context; their multiple levels of meaning both literal and allegorical; their purpose; and their application), and given the creativity of the parables themselves, it is wise to preach them with an open mind and some degree of creativity as to sermonic form – e.g. dramatic monologue; identification with a point of view; paraphrase in contemporary language.

Typically, the effectiveness of a parable is due to the fact that the “punch line” doesn’t come until the end, by which time those who might react negatively to its point have been drawn into the story. Because parables hold their “punch line” until the end, it would make sense to preach them that way.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership
“The Ministry Of Reconciliation, Pt. 4 (Continued): An Appeal For The Reconciliation Of God’s People To God’s Minister” (2 Cor. 6:11-7:16)

This is the final installment of our study of this passage. In the last two editions of this Journal we have covered 2 Corinthians 6:11-18 (Edition 43, Spring 2022) and 2 Corinthians 7:1-4 (Edition 44, Summer 2022) in which we addressed the first three sections of the passage:

1. A pastoral appeal of love (6:11-13).

2. A pastoral appeal of admonition (6:14-18).

3. The application of the pastoral appeal (7:1-4).

In this edition, we continue with the final section…

4. The Background to, and Outcome of, the Pastoral Appeal (7:5-16). It now becomes clear that the entire passage from 2:14 to 7:4 has been a digression in the flow of thought from 2:13. Let me illustrate it by putting the two sections together: “2:12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though the Lord opened a door for me, 2:13 I had no rest in my spirit because I did not find my brother Titus. Instead, I said good-bye to them and left for Macedonia” … 7:5 In fact, when we came to Macedonia, we had no rest…”. So, picking up the flow of thought from 2:12-13, Paul now explains that when he did not find Titus at Troas as he had expected and having no rest in his spirit, he left Troas for Macedonia hoping to find Titus there, which he did (7:5-6). Paul was anxious to meet up with Titus in order to receive news from him about his own well-being and that of the Corinthians, including, most importantly, their response to his “sorrowful / grievous letter” which Titus had delivered to them. He now recounts his reunion with Titus in Macedonia and the comfort he received from Titus’ report (7:7-16).

A question that arises is: Why did Paul take such a long digression from 2:14 to 7:4? Some have proposed that 2:14 to 7:4 is, in fact, an insertion from another letter, but such, I think, is not the case. Others argue that this is the way letters are written – they do not necessarily follow a systematic, logical pattern. While this is true, it is not, I think, the case here. While the extended passage from 2:14 and 7:4 is a digression, it is by no means disconnected, as some would assert, from the main flow of thought. Indeed, Paul’s account of his meeting with Titus forms the background for his appeals and instructions to the Corinthians in the digression. It helps our understanding of this digression to remember that it was written after the fact as this background to the pastoral appeal makes clear. Paul already knew what Titus had reported back to him when he wrote the digression. So, the digression shows us that, on the one hand Paul is elated by Titus’ report, but, on the other hand he evidently still had issues to resolve at Corinth. God certainly provides the minister with joy and victories in ministry, but at the same time victory in ministry is not without its challenges.

Ultimately, Paul learns from Titus that his sorrowful letter to the Corinthians achieved a wonderfully positive outcome as follows:

(a) Paul’s dejection about his circumstances turns to comfort by Titus’ fellowship (7:5-6). “5 In fact, when we came into Macedonia, we had no rest. Instead, we were troubled in every way: conflicts on the outside, fears within. 6 But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the arrival of Titus.” Paul’s bodily and mental tribulations continued when he arrived in Macedonia (cf. 4:8-9; 11:22-33). He faced external “conflicts” (perhaps spiritual attacks; perhaps physical) and internal “fears” (perhaps anxiety about how the Corinthians may have received Titus and Paul’s letter, especially since Titus had not returned as expected.

Ministers are not immune to calamities, opposition, and worries, “but God” makes all the difference. He “comforts the downcast” (cf. 1:3-7; cf. Ps. 34:18) and he comforted Paul in this instance. In the midst of his external conflicts and internal fears, Paul was comforted “by the arrival of Titus” (6b) – by the knowledge of his safety and by the personal reunion with his colleague in ministry, especially in the light of the opposition and loneliness that he had experienced. It is a great encouragement in ministry to have colleagues from whom you can receive comfort in hard times and with whom you can enjoy fellowship.

Thus, Paul’s dejection about his circumstances turns to comfort by Titus’ arrival and fellowship with him. And…

(b) Paul’s sorrow about their sin changes to joy by their response (7:7-13a). “…and (we were comforted) not only by his arrival but also by the comfort he received from you. He told us about your deep longing, your sorrow, and your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more” (2 Cor. 7:7). Paul was encouraged by their response to Titus – “…by the comfort (consolation) he received from you.”

Paul was comforted (7:7a) by the fact that Titus and the letter he brought from Paul had been well received by the church at Corinth, that his colleague in ministry had been well treated by them, and that their response to Titus’ mission (viz. the delivery of Paul’s letter) was positive. This was a source of great comfort to Paul. And Paul “rejoiced even more” in their response to him.

First, he rejoices even more because of their response to him personally (7:7b) as indicated in:

(i) “…your deep longing… for me.” They wanted to see Paul and, presumably, put things right, renew relationships.

(ii) “…your mourning… for me.” They were evidently sorry for what had happened.

(iii) “…your zeal for me.” Now their relational distance from Paul is replaced by a zeal for him - to do what he had instructed them and, perhaps, even to defend him.

Second, he rejoices even more because of their response to him spiritually (7:8-12). Paul seems to have struggled with how to handle this: “For even if I grieved you with my letter, I don’t regret it. And if I regretted it—since I saw that the letter grieved you, yet only for a while – I now rejoice…” (7:8-9a). On the one hand Paul seems to have initially regretted writing them the “sorrowful” letter, for he did not want to cause them grief. Why is this? Perhaps he did not want them to respond the wrong way to his letter. Perhaps he was afraid of being overly harsh and losing their ear. Perhaps he struggled, as their pastor, with addressing the issue on the one hand, and yet not wanting to lose their relationship on the other hand.

These are always the risks of confrontation and the struggle that pastors face - knowing what needs to be done and yet risking rejection. That’s why we always need to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), never “lord it” over others (1 Pet. 5:3), never trample on people either in anger or in spiritual superiority. But once he had written to them, he was glad that he had done so because their sorrow was short-lived, “only for a while” (7:8b), and because their sorrow led to repentance - “I now rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance” (7:9a).

Why did their grief lead to repentance? “For you were grieved as God willed” (7:9b). Their sorrow over what had happened (in the sin that was allowed among them and in their relationship with Paul) was sorrow that was according to God's will, produced by God. This wasn’t just a momentary feeling of regret, but a deep work of God in them. The result of grieving as God willed was “so that you didn’t experience any loss from us” (7:9c). Sorrow that is according to God is not without purpose - it does not have a negative effect; it does not result in severed relationships (as Paul may have worried); it does not deprive them of anything but rather gives back what was lost. No, it is in every way beneficial – it gives hope, restores joy, reconciles relationships etc. “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, but worldly grief produces death (7:10). This is the ministry of reconciliation, which has as its object “godly grief” that results in “repentance that leads to salvation without regret.”

“Godly grief” has an entirely different cause and result than “worldly grief.” Worldly grief leads to death (cf. 2 Cor. 2:16) whereas godly grief leads to life. That’s the contrast. Worldly grief is caused by circumstances (loss, failure etc.); godly grief is caused by sin. Worldly grief results in severed relationships, despair, perhaps even death (e.g. suicide); godly grief results in salvation, life, peace of conscience, joy, restored relationships, reconciliation.

“Godly grief” is sorrow not for self but toward God. It is (lit.) “grief according to God” – “as God wills” (7:11a) - grief produced by God and in response to God. Hence, godly grief leads to genuine repentance for sin - a turning away from sin that causes disruption in our relationship with God and a turning toward God in faith - and it seeks reconciliation with God and with one’s fellow human beings. This type of grief and repentance is the foundation of our salvation.

“Worldly grief,” on the other hand, is non-restorative. It cannot restore what is lost. It cannot undo what is done. It cannot give rest of conscience and peace. It cannot give spiritual life. It only produces bitterness, guilt, despair, and regret. But godly grief is a sorrow over sin which produces repentance and leads to salvation, which one never regrets, because it results in a restored relationship with God. Moreover, the result of godly grief is that you do not live the rest of your life in a state of regret for what might have been. Rather, the salvation and restoration of your relationship with God and each other is of such a nature that you never regret making that decision.

But why does Paul speak of such repentance in terms of leading to “salvation” when he is addressing believers? He is speaking of the “repentance” of these believers, the nature of which “leads to salvation.” Though they were Christians and were saved, their repentance was of the same nature as that which they originally expressed when they were saved. Paul is not suggesting that they were saved and lost and now saved again, but rather that their repentance was a true indication of their salvation; it fully restored them to a right relationship with God.

A minister of reconciliation works toward and looks for godly sorrow expressed in genuine, saving repentance. He deals with confrontation in such a way that it produces godly sorrow which (i) does not sever their relationship; and (ii) effects a permanent, spiritual result.

Now Paul describes what grief according to God (in a godly manner) is truly like; what changes it produces; what the nature of true repentance looks like: “For consider how much diligence this very thing—this grieving as God wills—has produced in you” (7:11a). Genuine repentance produces an entire transformation in the way one thinks and acts. The Corinthians now have an earnestness to do what is right before God. Instead of passively observing sinful behavior among them and boasting about it, they are now energized to act for God. How is that earnestness, this diligence expressed in their practice and attitude? Paul gives seven characteristics…

i) “What a desire to clear yourselves” (7:11b) – the church is cleared of complicity in this sin.

ii) “what indignation” (7:11c) – anger at sin. They now saw it for what it was and they were righteously indignant that it had happened among them and they had tolerated it. That’s what we should be angry about – sin!

iii) “What fear” (7:11d) – fear of God's chastisement; fear that God's holiness had been offended; fear of what they had done to “God's minister”; fear of where their course of action may have led.

iv) “What deep longing” (7:11e) – a longing to be reconciled with God and with Paul face to face; to see him, to be submissive to him, and to be obedient to his teaching. They longed for the former days and their relationship with God and Paul.

v) “What zeal” (7:11f) - probably zeal for doing what they should have done in the first place, namely, eagerness to exercise discipline in the church; readiness to put things right; a passion for holiness and obedience.

vi) “What justice!” (7:11g) – the action taken against the sin done among them. This carries on from “zeal” to put things right in the church. This is consistent with Paul’s comment in 2:5-11 that they were so zealous of punishing the offender that now they needed to forgive him.

vii) Indeed, “in every way you showed yourselves to be pure in this matter” (7:11h) - probably the matter in 1 Cor. 5:1ff. but Paul does not state it explicitly. They had done what was necessary in the exercise of discipline in the assembly and this “cleared” them. They were no longer partakers of that man’s sin.

Picking up on his remarks in 7:8 about the sorrowful (grievous) letter, Paul now explains why he wrote it in the first place: “12 So even though I wrote to you, it was not because of the one who did wrong, or because of the one who was wronged, but in order that your devotion to us might be made plain to you in the sight of God. 13a For this reason we have been comforted” (7:12-13a).

First, he explains why he did not write the severe letter. He did not write the severe letter for the sake of “the one who did wrong” - the son who had committed incest with his stepmother; the one whose excommunication Paul had ordered (1 Cor. 5:13); the one who had caused so much pain but who had subsequently repented (2 Cor. 2:1-8). And he did not write the severe letter for the sake of “the one who was wronged” – presumably, the husband of the stepmother. Notice that, with pastoral wisdom and grace, Paul does not use names – the issue is over and there is no benefit in dragging people’s names through the mud. He merely refers to them as “the one who did wrong” and “the one who was wronged”.

Then, he explains why he did write the severe letter. He wrote the severe letter so that, in the presence of God, they might become aware of how much they really cared for Paul, their earnestness for him. That is exactly the result his severe letter achieved. And because of all this (his letter, their response, the impact on the church, Titus’ report etc.), “we have been comforted.”

(c) Paul’s boasting about them proves true by Titus’ encouragement (7:13b-16). “13b In addition to our own comfort, we rejoiced even more over the joy Titus had, because his spirit was refreshed by all of you. 14 For if I have made any boast to him about you, I have not been disappointed; but as I have spoken everything to you in truth, so our boasting to Titus has also turned out to be the truth” (7:13b-14).

Throughout this section, Paul is looking on the positive side of things (their response, Titus’ encouragement, his joy etc.), despite the underlying evidence that he still had issues to deal with at Corinth - e.g. their challenge to Paul’s authority etc. (see chapters 10-13). Despite all of that, Paul is comforted by what has happened at Corinth (particularly, their response to his severe letter) and even more comforted by Titus’ joy over the refreshment he received from them while delivering the letter.

Paul’s grace and pastoral love for the Corinthians becomes very evident. One would hardly expect him, in view of everything they had done and said about him, that he would actually boast about them to Titus. But rather than send Titus to them with a bad impression of them or to carry out harsh measures, he had sent Titus to Corinth with a positive commendation of them (boasting), which had proved true, just as everything he had said to them was true. As a result (i) Titus’ love for them is deepened: “And his affection toward you is even greater as he remembers the obedience of all of you, and how you received him with fear and trembling” (7:15); and (ii) Paul’s confidence in them is strengthened: “I rejoice that I have complete confidence in you” (7:16). After having strengthened their mutual relationship and expressed his confidence in them, he then takes up the matter of the offering for the poor believers in Jerusalem in chapters 8-9.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Learning from Jesus - The Treasure of the Kingdom (Matt. 13:44-46)

Subject: Discovering the eternal riches of God's kingdom

Theme: You discover eternal riches when you enter the kingdom of heaven through Jesus Christ.

Point I. Some people unexpectedly stumble on the treasure of Christ’s kingdom (13:44).

Point II. Some people diligently search for the treasure of Christ’s kingdom (13:45-46).

Related Topics: Pastors

Pages