Skip to main content

Hermeneutics, Author's Intent & Composition

Sailhamer- The Meaning of the Pentateuch
Introduction (pp. 18-23)

Hermeneutics
· “The goal of a theological study of the Pentateuch is the biblical author’s intent as realized in the work itself.” (19)

· “The Pentateuch may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of real person or events We do not understand a Rembrandt painting by taking a photograph of the ‘thing’ that Rembrandt painted and comparing it with painting itself. That may help us understand the ‘thing’ that the Rembrandt painted, his subject matter, but it will not help us understand the painting itself. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, we must look at it and see its colors, shapes, and textures. … To understand Rembrandt’s painting, one must study the painting itself. To understand the Pentateuch, one must study the Pentateuch itself.”(19-20)

Finding the Author’s Intent
· “Every part of the Pentateuch has its place within the context of its big idea. … whatever we say about the meaning of the details and parts of the Pentateuch should be brought into line with the author’s intent for the whole.” (20)

The Composition of the Pentateuch
· “The Pentateuch as we now have it is the product of much reflection and organization of its material. There is a strategy in its final shape.” (23)

· “The author took written records and wove them together into a coherent whole so that the whole of his narrative has a center, a focus, and tells a complete story of real events. The most direct indication of the author’s meaning in the Pentateuch is the overall literary strategy of the book and the verbal seams that unite the final form of the text.”(23)

· “The authorship of the Pentateuch is much like that of the Gospels, Samuel, and Kings, all of which appear to have used written sources to tell their story.”(23)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

  Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know.  So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated.  Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he kne...

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here.  I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions.  This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration.  I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him.   I assume he is a brother in the LORD.  Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern:  Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a  good and healthy example?  Let's think about it some together.  (Watch this clip below here first.) Context:  The clip was posted to stand on its own a...