Some Notes What a Narrative “Means” (with Help From Euripides)

15 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Hermeneutics, Literature, Uncategorized

Tags

Euripides, Greek Poetry, Hecuba, hermeneutics, Meaning, Narrative

Hecuba and Polyxena by Merry-Joseph Blondell

We can understand what a work of nonfiction “means”: the words in the text refer to some objective (typically) event in the physical world. A book on President Grant refers back to the life of President Grant.

When it comes to non-fiction, the question of “meaning” because more difficult: A play or poem or story does not express “meaning” in the same manner. Sometimes the “meaning” of a text is merely the entertainment the text provides.

Another type of “meaning” comes from a text which seeks to bring the reader to a new understanding of the world. There are always exceptions, but typically “bad” writing tells the reader plainly what to think. Most writers who attempt this work may try to “show and not tell” the reader what to think will handle it poorly.

But when a towering master performs this work it is a thing of beauty. The effectiveness of the meaning comes from its ability to speak and persuade. Here is an example of brilliance in Euripides’ play Hecuba.

It would be easy to get lost in the names, so I’ll do my best to be clear.

The first thing you must know, is that the original audience for Euripides play were Greeks. The play itself concern the exploits of the great heroes and the great war of Greek of imagination: In the dim past the Greeks came to war against City of Troy as revenge for taking Helen from a Greek king. (How and why this took place is another story.)

You need to know that this story would be the equivalent of the Revolution and the Civil War and the World Wars all rolled into one. The men in this story are more than just George Washington or Abraham Lincoln; they are heroes, mythic figures, nearly divine.

The story Hecuba begins after the Greeks have sacked Troy. The king of Troy had sent his son to another kingdom with a treasure to keep him safe should Troy fall. Yet when the king of Thrace heard that Troy fell, he murdered his friend’s son to take the gold and treasure. The play beings with the ghost of the son telling what had happened to him, washed up on the shore, unburied (a horror to the Greeks).

Hecuba was the queen of Troy, now reduced to slavery is the moral and emotional center of the story. The audience hears from her what it is to be reduced and enslaved and in fear for her family. The natural sympathy of the story is thus skillfully built-up throw the eyes of the enemy in the greatest war in Greek history.

The tension increases when the ghost of Achilles appears above his tomb and demands the sacrifice of Hebuca’s daughter, the princess of Troy, Polyxena. It would be hard to overstate the greatness of Achilles in Greek imagination: Alexandra the Great thought himself in some way the second Achilles.

Thus, their greatest hero demanded the murder of an enslaved princess.

The message that Polyxena would be killed was brought to Hecuba by Odysseus. Again the space for Odysseus is difficult to explain. He is the hero of the second-half of the Greek “Bible” (if you will), the Odyssey. He is an arch-type of all Western Culture.

The tension is raised here, because Hecuba had spared Odysseus’s life during the time of the war. He is depicted as a groveling, dishonest, manipulative man who said anything just to stay alive. As he puts it, “Word-words full many I found to escape death.”

It is this groveling, ungrateful wretch who is the hero of the Greeks seeking the murder of a young woman to appease the ghost of an even greater hero.

As we hear this scene, it comes to us through the perspective of Hecuba: the woman who home has been destroyed by an invading army, who family has been destroyed now sees a liar come to drag her daughter off to murder.

At this point, Euripides has made the enemies of Greek imagination sympathetic, and the heroes of Greek thought wretched and vicious.

The punch-line of this scene comes when Odysseus calls Hecuba a “Barbarian” (the height of Greek insults), because she is unwilling to pay homage to the dead.

Upon this insult, the Chorus, who are the moral conscience of the play respond, “Woe What a curse is thralldom’s nature.” Hecuba and Polyxena are “enduring wrong” and are “overborne” by the “strong constraint” of their captors.

Euripides didn’t say in blunt terms, destroying kingdoms, stealing women and sacrificing captives to barbaric.

Rather, by giving voice to the pain and fear of the “enemy” and showing the callous barbarism of the “heroes” he more effectively overturns a cheap chauvinism in his audience.

The “meaning” of the text is not some bare proposition (killing other human beings is generally bad). Rather, the meaning is reversal of expectation the shock of heroes failing, the sorrow for the enemy. The meaning of the story is the transformation of perspective.

One could repeat a proposition and even understand it’s cognitive content without being transformed. But cry for the enemy and feel shock for the hero is different than the bare proposition. One can know and not be changed; but that would not be the “meaning” of this play. The meaning is the movement of the human heart.

How Your Associations Effect the Way Others See You

23 Saturday Jun 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Persuasion, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cialdini, Narrative, Persuasion

We are known by the company we keep: to be associated with another may raise or lower the opinions of others. Therefore, one important means of persuading others is to be aware of, and manage our connections to others

At the height of his wealth and success, the financier Baron de Rothschild was petition for a loan by an acquaintance. Reputedly the great man replied, “I won’t give you a loan myself; but I will walk arm-in-arm with you across the floor the Stock Exchange, and you will soon have willing lenders to spare.” Apparently the baron was wise in more than matter of finance. He understood and intriguing fact with the psychology of impression management: It is possible to influence how we are viewed by managing information about the people and things to whihc we are merely connected.

Robert B. Cialdini, “Beyond Basking: Indirect Techniques of Image Management,” in Impression Management in the Organization, ed. Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1989), 45.

Cialdini then proceeds to offer 8 variations on this theme. First, we may wish to establish either a connection or distance from the “other”. In these four instance, our connection is ambiguous, and thus we are seeking to making the connection — or lack thereof — clear. He labels these mechanisms as

Boasting: Proclaiming a Positive Link to a Favorable Other

Burying: Disclaiming a Positive Link to a Favorable Other

Blaring: Proclaiming a Negative Link to an Unfavorable Other

Blurring: Disclaiming a Negative Link to a Favorable Other

What of circumstances where we are unquestionably united to another, such as a business partner or family member? In these instances, we are not seeking to establish our tie to that person, but rather to effect the way the audience thinks about that person. These techniques he labels as

Burnishing: Enhancing the Favorable Features of a Positively Linked Other

(Our firm is the best!)

Boosting: Minimizing the Unfavorable Features of an Positively Linked Other
(my brother’s not that bad)

Blasting: Exaggerating the Unfavorable Features of Negatively Linked Other
(Yes, he doesn’t like me — but he’s a jerk.)

Belittling: Minimizing the Favorable Features of a Negatively Linked Other
(Sure, he doesn’t like me, but he’s not really that important)

You’re not as smart as the Internet makes you think you are

22 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Persuasion, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Book, Internet, Memory, Narrative, Pride, Psychology

hqdefault

Journal of Experimental Psychology
2015, vol. 144, no. 3, 674-687
Matthew Fisher, Mariel K. Goddu, Frank C. Keil
“Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge”

Human beings can create systems for distributing tasks and information. Families and businesses do this sort of thing: work and information is distributed across all the members of the system. This permits the system to do more than any individual could do alone. Or to quote our authors,

By reducing redundancy, transactive memory systems work to encode, store and retrieve information more effectively than could be done by any individual.

Id., at p. 674. Now, our transactive partner in this memory storage and recall process could be a technological: indeed, the Internet has taken over as perhaps the primary source of information storage.

But the Internet goes far beyond what a spouse or business partner can provide in terms of information: it is always there, always ready, always responsive, nearly instantaneous and provides seemingly inexhaustible resources:

The Internet has been described as a “supernormal stimulus” in that its breadth and immediacy far surpass any naturally occurring transactive partner to which our minds have adapted.

Id. at p. 675. Thus, not surprisingly, the Internet has a profound effect upon how we understand our possession of knowledge. But rather than humbling us, the Internet plays to our pride and causes us to over-evaluate our self-understanding:

And in the case of the Internet, an especially immediate and ubiquitous memory partner, there may be especially large knowledge overestimations. As people underestimate how much they are relying on the Internet, success at finding information on the Internet may be conflated with personally mastered information, leading Internet users to erroneously include knowledge stored outside their own heads as their own.

Id. at p. 675.

The authors of the study note that there may be dangers in this freely accessible information. This unnoticed tendency to overestimate our intellectual abilities is coupled to a decreasing ability to retain and access “internal” information.

To draw this point out further, the Internet seems to have the ability to make us increasingly vulnerable to information: (1) we have decreasing ability to critique this information (granted the question of critique was not tested in the study, however, that seems like an inherent trouble with an atrophied cognitive mechanism: one merely “finds” the information, rather than segregates the information; and, the hideous ability to manipulate public opinion almost instantly through the “news” media seems proof of this point); and (2) when we ingest this information we are not realizing that it was sourced outside of ourselves, but rather come to believe that this is our “own” information.

How Narratives Work, Part 4

03 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Acts 4, irony, Narrative

Now that one has understood the plot line (and with biblical narratives, the sensitivity to the various levels of plots: the individual stories are part of larger narratives), and has undertaken to understand the look and feel of the story from the inside; there is a need to learn why the story is being told: what is the story about?

There are a few ways to begin to understand the story. Consider what the characters do and say? Does the narrator give explicit comment (and is the narrator “reliable”)? There is a “good guy” and a “bad guy” in the story. If the “good guy” wins or loses, why is that? Look for irony: are the character’s expectations upset? Why did the narrator tell me this story? To entertain me? To change me?

When we read the Biblical narratives, there is always a “strangeness” to the story: we must be changed.

In the narrative of Acts 4 here are some observations:

In verses 13, Peter and John are arrested for preaching: but the arrest was not successful in stopping the power of the proclamation:

But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.Acts 4:4 (ESV)

The power lay in the Word, not in Peter and John. Later in Acts 5:38-39, Gamaliel puts his finger on the issue:

³⁸So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; ³⁹but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice,Acts 5:38–39 (ESV)

(Continued in the next post).

How Narratives Work, Part III

29 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Narrative, Preaching

Having fully worked through the plot points, it is necessary next to consider the details. The biblical narratives are extremely spare. Consider for example, Acts 4:7a, “And when they had set them in their midst”. The scene is told with exceeding brevity. Peter and John had been “put in custody” the night before.

Someone gave an order to fetch the men from some sort of jail. There were some number of guards who came to Peter and John, released them from their custody and transported them to some other room where there were some number of men.

How gave the order? How was it conveyed? What did the room look like where Peter and John were imprisoned? Was it cold or hot? Were then in chains, behind bars? How many steps was it from the prison to the room for meeting? What did the room look like? How many men were in the room?

What did it feel like when Peter and John stood in the middle of the room? There may have been a change in Peter, because the text says, “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:8).

When preaching or teaching, it is essential to unpack, or fill in the details. One primary purpose of narratives is not merely convey some proposition, but to convey understanding in a manner which is affecting. We watch movies and read stories because of how the story makes us feel (and think).

Take the hearers into the prison room; listen for the turn of the lock. Speak with the guard. Walk along the hallways into the room before the leaders of your people. This will require some research. Fortunately, there many good resources for biblical events. You do not need to use slides during your sermon, but you can describe the scene.

This is where reading will help. The way to learn to use words is to read masters using words. Here is the first paragraph of A Farewell to Arms:

In the late summer of that year we lived in a house in a village that looked across the river and the plain to the mountains. In the bed of the river there were pebbles and boulders, dry and white in the sun, and the water was clear and swiftly moving and blue in the channels. Troops went by the house and down the road and the dust they raised powdered the leaves of the trees. The trunks of the trees too were dusty and the leaves fell early that year and we saw the troops marching along the road and the dust rising and leaves, stirred by the breeze, falling and the soldiers marching and afterward the road bare and white except for the leaves.

He makes you look at the scene. Learn to write and speak in such a way that you help others look at the scene. If you are a preacher, learning to use words well is your job. Yo have no excuse for not working to learn this skill. By the way, if you preach in such a way as to make a scene like Peter and John before the rulers boring you are not conveying truth — you are actually distorting the “meaning” of the text.

Now in doing this, be careful not to make up details. Consider this detail from a medieval Bible showing David slaying Goliath:

Old Testament miniatures, MS M.638, fol. 28v, Samuel

Without question, no one was dressed like that in the original event. But, when we do not have the details, it is easy for us to fill a picture which fits our expectations. Caution is necessary here.

However, we can use analogies to circumstances we and the hearers do know. For instance, none of know what it would be like to be brought before the rulers, elders and scribes and High Priest. But what if the FBI had gathered you and then dropped you before a meeting of the President and the Director of the CIA?

In order for the hearer to understand this story, the hearer/reader must experience a palpable fear. Peter’s courage makes no sense without Peter’s history of fear and without the real danger faced by Peter and John. Remember, these same men had just sent Jesus off to be murdered! If they could dispose of Jesus, what will they do to Peter and John?

How Narratives Work, Part 2

11 Saturday Nov 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Holy Spirit, Narrative, Preaching, Teaching

After noting the plot points in the section under consideration, we should note how this particular section of Acts 4 fits into the larger narratives. First, this scene of Peter and John before the counsel fits into a larger section running from Acts 3:1 and ending with 4:35.

The scene in chapter 3 begins with Peter and John coming to the temple to pray. They meet a lame beggar at the Beautiful Gate. The beggar hopes to receive alms. Peter tells the man what he does not have (“silver and gold”) but he also makes an offer:

But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!”

Acts 3:6 (ESV). If the close of the extended is 4:35, there is an interesting parallel concerning wealth, because 4:32-35 concerns the distribution of wealth throughout the church. If the section ends with 4:31, it closes with prayer. Acts 3 begins with the apostles going to prayer and having no wealth.

The man having been healed in the name of Jesus, a crowd gathers. Peter preaches a Gospel sermon “proved” by the power of Jesus in healing this man and the power of God in raising Jesus:

¹⁵and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. ¹⁶And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

Acts 3:15–16 (ESV).

Chapter 4 then begins with the power of the state in arresting and trying Peter and John. Luke parenthetically points to the power of the Word of God:

But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

Acts 4:4 (ESV). The apostles are interrogated concerning the source of the miracle: “By what power or in what name”? Whose authority is at play here?

Peter responds with a quotation from Psalm 118, that Jesus is the cornerstone.

There is then the famous response of Peter concerning God’s authority versus the authority of the state:

¹⁹But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, ²⁰for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

Acts 4:19–20 (ESV). Having been threatened by the powers that be, Peter and John return to the church.

The church prays: first, a praise to God for his sovereignty even persecution: Jesus was killed by wicked me which was “whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27). They then pray for boldness to stand against the threats and persecution.

This section fits within the larger narrative of the primitive church’s growth and Peter’s preaching.

Finally, there is the master narrative set forth in the prologue: Luke was the “beginning” of what Jesus did and taught (Acts 1:2); and Jesus’ programmatic statement for Acts:

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 1:8. Jesus will continue to work and teach, but it will be through the power of the Holy Spirit and it will be through the witness of these disciples. The events of Acts 3 & 4 are further examples of how Jesus healed a man; how the disciples were witnesses to Jesus; and how this was done through the work of the Spirit (Acts 4:8, “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit’).

In doing this, we are still at the observation stage of our work. We note the major plot points of a section. We then note the general themes of the section and how these look compared to the larger narrative(s).

Reading Scriptural Narrative

24 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Hermeneutics, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Biblical Doctrine, hermeneutics, Narrative

I am working through Biblical Doctrine by MacArthur and Mayhue. I am going to have a criticism of a single sentence, so I should put this into context. The work over all is quite good. The greatest strength of the work lies with the marshaling of biblical evidence. When it sets forth a doctrine, it typically sets forth the universe of Scriptural support. For example, on page 340, they list 27 instances of how the Holy Spirits ministers to the people of God (He adopts, baptizes, bears witness, call to ministry, convicts, empowers, et cetera). The book is filled with such lists and charts. On this particular point, it is exceptionally good.

A second aspect of the work which I appreciate is that it does not require a great deal of technical background: the text avoids theological terms and prefers to explain the doctrine and use relative simple English terms. This makes the book useful for those coming to theology for the first time as a discipline.

In short, the book is a very good introductory systematic theology.

Now to pick on a sentence. This sentence scraps a particular concern of mine: the common place lack of training in literature and language for Bible teachers and theologians. The Bible is primarily a book of stories and poems. However, most Western contemporary theological training tries to reduce the entire Scripture to a mass of bare propositions akin to blueprints or a shopping list. This is wrong for a million reasons — but that is another topic.

Anyway, here is my concern:

On page 356, a rule of interpretation is stated as follows:

Use teaching (didactic) sections of Scripture, not historical (narrative) portions to determine what is prescriptive rather than what is merely descriptive —what is exceptional compared to what should be considered normative.

First, the bare fact of something having had happened tells us very little beyond that it had happened. We need to ask other questions to make sense of the bare fact: we need context to understand a historical event. They should have written something like, “there are different hermeneutical principles for deriving application from narrative than for didactic passages.”

Our life comes to us as narrative: we see the events in our life as coming from some context and going in a particular direction. Therefore, anyone who merely points at some bare fact and then draws a “random” conclusion proves little more than there are an infinite number of lines which can be drawn through any point.

For example, George Washington was president of the United States. Therefore, I conclude that am the president — or anyone named George can be can be president — or only persons named George can be president, et cetera. Or only persons who were friends with people who knew George Washington — or whatever crazy rule. The proper context is the legal context of the United States Constitution which creates the basis for one becoming president.

I read the United States went to war with England in 1812, therefore, I conclude that England is the enemy of America. I prove that point by pointing to the Revolutionary War. Then someone points to World War I & II.

This sort of naive reading of narrative is seen by members of the Watchtower Society who will not have birthday parties, because Herod — a bad man — had a birthday party. Therefore, birthday parties are bad. Herod also ate, drank, slept, married.

The question being considered on page 356 is whether all believers must speak with tongues to be saved. Some will argue that because there were instances of tongue speaking recorded in Acts, that such is proof that all believers must speak in tongues. That sort of poor reading does not mean the narrative is ambiguous, faulty or otherwise deficient. It merely means that one has to read a narrative in the manner proper for reading narratives.

The trouble with “we all must speak in tongues” is not that one has used narrative to determine a doctrine. Rather, the trouble is that one has read the narrative poorly. The proper context for the narrative is all of Acts — and all of the New Testament, and all of the Scripture. Part of the narrative context are the epistles.

Moreover, the epistles must be understood by referring back to the narrative portions of Scripture: each of the texts helps make sense of the other texts.

Second, the rule as stated makes a point about reading narrative: it distinguishes between exception and normative: That is something gleaned from reading the narrative. Herod celebrating his birthday does not mean that a two year should not eat cake on his birthday. That would be an example of very poor reading.

Third, the authors contradict this rule repeatedly in this very book because they use narrative to prove up doctrine.

For example, on page 366, they consider the question of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old Testament. After a review of the narrative they write:

The major characteristics of indwelling in the Old Testament can be summarize as follows:
Infrequent
Involving selected leaders in Israel only
Temporary
An empowerment for service

Page 367. They read the narrative and deduced a doctrinal point. This is an appropriate reading of narrative.

Or, on page 384, they are considering the question of whether miracles are normative and continuing. On previous pages, they cited to historical precedent and church historians. Looking to the Bible they write

There is no single, explicitly clear biblical statement that specifies whether miracles through men and temporary gifts ceased with the apostles or continued, but if one consults the whole counsel of God, one will find the answer.

They then engage in a reading of the explicit and implicit narrative of the New Testament.

What they really mean to say is that one must read the Scripture with some care. For example, when reading narrative, one cannot simply conclude that because a good man has done X that all men must do X to be good (how many men will offer their son as a sacrifice, ascend Mt. Sinai or bury a linen belt?).No can one conclude that because God did X for a good man in the past means that God will do so of all good men in the future (how many men have been fed by ravens?). Such readings demonstrate foolishness: the fault lies in the reader not in the text.

We can only assume that such people do not go about the world concluding that because a police man has a light bar and gun that they should do the same thing.

One’s reading of the narratives must be consistent with all of the Bible. Plucking an isolated text and drawing a conclusion is foolish and lazy.

Stephen’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part I

19 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Genesis, Uncategorized, Worship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham, Acts, Acts 7, Argument, Genesis, Genesis 12, Genesis 17, Narrative, Stephen

First, the structure of Steven’s Speech in Acts 7

THE CHARGE:

Acts 6:8–15 (ESV)

8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. 10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15 And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

DETAILS:

CONCLUSORY CHARGE:
This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,

EVIDENCE:
14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us

LOGIC STRUCTURE:

IF
Stephen said Jesus will (a) destroy the temple and (b) change Moses customs

THEN
Stephen is blaspheming.

Therefore, Ste

STEPHENS DEFENSE

Stephen anchors his defense in the promise of God to Abraham:

A. God’s appearance to Abraham

1. Acts 7:2–3 (ESV)
2 And Stephen said:
“Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’
2. God promises Abraham a homeland
It is probably safe to say that Stephen also implies the totality of the promises made to Abraham.

3. This scene is roughly paralleled by the God of glory’s appearance to Stephen at the end of the story:

Acts 7:54–60 (ESV)

54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

B. Abraham’s Obedience (v. 4)
Acts 7:4 (ESV)
4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.

C. God explains the delay in the promise being fulfilled/Covenant of Circumcision

1. Acts 7:5–6 (ESV)
5 Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. 6 And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years.

2. Acts 7:8 (ESV)
8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.

2. Genesis

Stephen’s order matches Genesis:

Genesis 17:1–14 (ESV)

17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

THE SAVOIRS/REJECTIONS

At this point, Stephen a series of three saviors who are rejected: Joseph, Moses & and then Jesus. The odd movement here is between the Temple to Jesus

How to Interpret and Use a Narrative Text

18 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by memoirandremains in Preaching, Ruth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Daniel Block, Narrative, Preaching, Ruth, Teaching

Most preachers and Bible teachers have great difficulty when presented with a historical narrative. The sermon often becomes an extended set of historical observations about the text and perhaps bootstrapping it into a strange illustration (five hints for slaying the Goliath in your life).

Daniel Block provides a set of five questions which can help direct one’s understanding and use of narrative texts:

In the Scriptures historiographic compositions are primarily ideological in purpose. The authoritative meaning of the author is not found in the event described but in the author’s interpretation of the event, that is, his understanding of their causes, nature, and consequences. But that interpretation must be deduced from the telling. How is this achieved? By asking the right questions of the text: (1) What does this account tell us about God? (2) What does it tell us about the human condition? (3) What does it tell us of the world? (4) What does it tell us of the people of God—their collective relationship with him? (5) What does it tell us of the individual believer’s life of faith? These questions may be answered by careful attention to the words employed and the syntax exploited to tell the story. But they also require a cautious and disciplined reading between the lines, for what is left unstated also reflects an ideological perspective. Having described the problem and set the agenda, we may proceed to answer the questions raised.

Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 604–605.