The reading for Easter 3 in Year B is Luke 24.36b-48 and it looks like the poor relation of last year’s reading, the story of the encounter of the two disciples with Jesus on the road to Emmaus.
But it is in fact a fascinating gathering of Jesus’ teaching and action, packed into a short space, which tells us much about the nature and meaning of his resurrection, the disciples’ response, and what is going to come next. It is a neglected treasure trove!
Come and join James and Ian as they explore the issues and implications of this passage.
Thanks guys, thinking on…
Broiled fish:
Cooked over a flame, wrapped in a parcel, to be eaten later.
Crucified………………..entombed………………..resurrected
There is a steady progression that I see in this chapter.
Jesus opened their eyes, 24 v 31
opened the scriptures [OT] 24 v32
opened their understanding 24 v 45
Inspite of having the Scriptures and hearing the teachings of Jesus there was a profound ignorance of the same.
I note that Jesus “expounded” the Scriptures 24:27
The fashionable method is described as “interpreting”the Scriptures which opens the door to all manner of fanciful construing and conjecture etc.
The prayer of the Psalmist was
119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Ps 119:27 Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.
Which then informed his stewardship.
Ps 145:5 I will speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works
Paul’s commission was
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
His prayer for the maturing of the Church was
Ephesians 1:17-18
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: [This to an established church]
Isa.9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
There is a great difference between knowledge and understanding which only God can give “I the Lord give understanding”
*Construe comes from the Latin verb construere, meaning “to construct.” There is also misconstrue, meaning “to put a wrong construction (that is, a wrong interpretation) on” or “to misinterpret.”
‘I note that Jesus “expounded” the Scriptures 24:27
The fashionable method is described as “interpreting”the Scriptures which opens the door to all manner of fanciful construing and conjecture etc.
The verb here is di-ermeneuo from which we get our term ‘hermeneutics’. So nothing ‘fashionable’ in the language of ‘interpretation’.
You do really need to read a modern translation and not rely on the AV…!
Ian Paul – Interpreting, properly understood, yes – but there is a strange modern use of ‘interpret – which is quite common – which does have the connotations which Alan Kempson suggests – so I’d say that for the 2020’s ‘expounding’ is probably better, gets the meaning across more clearly – and avoids these connotations that have crept in.
No, ‘expounding’ has a very specific meaning, and it is not what ‘hermeneuo’ means.
Thankyou Ian for your correction.
At the same time I Must remind you of the rules of this blog
“Do challenge others in the debate; please don’t attack them personally.” Sorry if I touched a nerve. Shalom.
This page:
https://biblehub.com/parallel/luke/24-27.htm
give a lot of English translations of Luke 24:27. It is interesting that it seems to be only the KJV and those derived from it which use ‘expound’ as the verb. ‘Interpret’ [sic] and ‘explain’ seem to be the most common translations. I was interested to find that Tyndale used ‘interpret’. So this was changed by the KJV translators.
My Shorter OED gives the meaning of ‘expound’:
1) To set forth in detail
2) To explain, esp. to interpret (Scripture, religious formularies, etc.)
3) To expose to view – 1664
So, perhaps the KJV’s ‘expound’ is actually not that different from ‘interpret’.
I think it now means something quite different in evangelical piety, which is suspicious of the whole hermeneutical enterprise.
From BDAG, diermeneuo means:
1. to translate from one language to another
2. to clarify someth. so as to make it understandable, explain, interpret
“I think it now means something quite different in evangelical piety, which is suspicious of the whole hermeneutical enterprise.”[Ian]
“Suspicious” seems a bit combative to me and perhaps misleading and misrepresenting.
The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology
Scripture and Hermeneutics
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
c.oup.com/edited-volume/34329/chapter-abstract/291345106?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
This article focuses on the nature (what it is), authority (rightful say-so), and interpretation (how to use it/make it work correctly) of the Bible. Strictly speaking, evangelicals do not believe “in” the Bible but in the God who authored and speaks authoritatively through it. The challenge for an evangelical theory (doctrine) and practice (interpretation) of Scripture is to hold fast to the gospel fixed in writing while engaging the living God who is its author and attending to the great salvation that is its subject matter. “Biblicism” is one of the most frequently cited defining marks of evangelicalism. Evangelicals take their doctrinal and ethical marching orders from the Scriptures, and the goal is to be a people whose faith, hope, and love—her doctrine, duty, and devotion—centers on the promise of God fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the one about whom the gospel is proclaimed. This article also discusses Protestant orthodoxy and pietist revival, hermeneutics, and the infallibility of the Bible.
See also, as a corrective;
.bestbiblecommentaries.com/exegetical-and-expository-preaching-compared/
Thanks Jock for your helpful comment.
Shalom.
Alan, I think your wanting to avoid using the word ‘interpret’ when that is the best translation expresses rather well this ‘suspicion’!
Au contraire Ian; Is it disagreeable to disagree with your “whole hermeneutical enterprise.”[Ian]
I think that my use of the KJV is problematic for you and excites some ire.
For the record : I have been reading the KJV for many decades to very great profit and blessing. I have in that time seen various “other versions” come and go in and out of fashion,
which for some have not lasted even a decade.
I also read extensively the Amplified Version if that counts as a “modern “ version.
The KJV was the language of Shakespeare It was the version used by some very great earth-shaking Christian orators {Are there such as these evident in our “modern world?}
Yay, and was foundational even in forming C of E Praxis.
That our great English language is gradually being debased in general and is ,for me, regrettable
then a simplified version becomes necessary.
As young people are now using symbols {emojis}to communicate rather than words, I can imagine there might yet be an EV {emoji version} of the Bible ; maybe even this blog
As an interesting exercise try putting John 3 v 16 into emoji characters, it can be done so.
It is ironic that you follow this post with an hermeneutical conundrum.
A forensic examiner has had his “eyes opened” in that he has examined God’s DNA and “discovered” that the pre-eminent feature of God is mercy. which of course chimes with the “ God is love” mantra of Gay theology which declares now that “ Love is God” hence it might appear “ Mercy is God” Such interpretations rob God of His Glory, and are simply a God of their own imaginations.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
“A right conception of God is basic not only to systematic theology but to practical Christian living as well.
It is to worship what the foundation is to the temple; where it is
inadequate or out of plumb the whole structure must sooner or later collapse.
I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.
It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current in these middle years of the twentieth century is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity”.
[From the Preface of A W Tozer’s The Kowledge of the Holy
a free copy of which is available @
christlifemin.org/assets/pdf/the_knowledge_of_the_holy
Shalom
‘I think that my use of the KJV is problematic for you and excites some ire.’ No, no ire.
But as a matter of historical fact, the translators did not have access to the scrolls and manuscripts we now have, and as a result they make mistakes.
Plus, their translation was influenced by respect for authority, which distorted some important translations.
And it is not in contemporary language, so it bound to be misunderstood, since words change their meaning over time.
Those three reasons are why you need to read a modern translation.
Alan: “young people are now using symbols {emojis}to communicate rather than words”.
But Alan, doesn’t this mean that “young people” have finally caught up with what Chinese readers have been doing for centuries? (and English readers in some instances (!, @, $, %, …, etc.)
And arn’t “words” “symbols” anyway? Isn’t there a story around about an English schoolboy who after visiting Europe said, “The French call it a “cuille[grave]re”, the Germans call it a “Lo[umlaut]ffel, but WE call it a “spoon” WHICH IS WHAT IT IS?
🙂
I am quite happy for you to have the last word Ian.
Have we now finished the Greek lesson? Are we now to hurry on to
the diversion of Hebrew semantics in the next post?
A very Jewish concept being to answere/avoid a question with another question.
The whole point of this blog, and these articles, is to help people to read the Bible well. I am very aware of the desire (in myself, and in others) to stay with one version, especially when we are familiar with it.
But different Bible versions do better and worse jobs of allowing us to read the Scriptures well.
That’s all I am saying really!
best
Indeed Ian
As G.R.OSBORNE remarks in THE HERMENEUTICAL SPIRAL
For Osborne, “the final goal of hermeneutics is not systematic theology but the sermon. The actual purpose of Scripture is not explanation but exposition, not description but proclamation” (p. 29). This proves to be more than a mere statement of conviction for Osborne, as the outline of the book will effectively bring the reader from the examination of the biblical text in their original languages to the homiletical execution of a Sunday morning sermon.
Pax, Shalom.
That reminds me, of something I listened to a few years ago now.
Mike Reeves (UCCF’s Theologian at Large at that time) was introduced as someone who would now explain the passage of scripture, just then read out. Reeves responded to the effect that he wasn’t there to explain the scripture, but to preach the Good News of Jesus.
The late Tim Keller emphasised late preaching wasn’t passing on merely good information, nor good advice, but was Good News of God in Christ Jesus.
Or as Spurgeon answered when asked to comment on a sermon he’d heard, (and to employ a biblical phrase in season) responded, he has taken away my Lord and I don’t know what he has done with him. John 20:13.
Is Jesus preached from all the scriptures which testify about Him.
Is He absent? Is what remains little more than Moralistic Therapeutic Deism?
I don’t pretend to follow the ins and outs of the discussion above but I reckon the quote from Spurgeon is spot on… oh so often, we are subjected to ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’ from the pulpit. It falls very far short and usually serves to confuse, bore or mislead those who do not follow Jesus closely. People turn up at church but go away without being fed and discipled. I often come away with a wonky insides!
Don’t know why the system gives a double entry of my singular message….??
Personally, I’m more interested in broiled, fish cooked to a 1stC. recipe.
Or- How did Jesus bbq fish?
Did bread ovens look like garden tombs?
Did Jesus body look like a meal wrapped in a cloth?
Anyone got an opinion, not found somewhere else, not from a book?
Can communion be replaced at times with bread & fish washed down with Spring Water?
It was a lakeside, sea-shore charcoal fire which speaks of a time of preparation, not instant fire.
Fish is ICTHUS. Jesus Christ God’s Son Saviour. We feed on Him, With allusions to Daniel and being saved, raised, through the fires of hell.
But, tell me the old,, old story…
As if for the first time!
🙂 Jesus is The Fish with the very imprimitur stamp of God’s coin in His mouth.
Thankyou Ian
“The whole point of this blog, and these articles, is to help people to read the Bible well.”[Ian]
I appreciate your aspirations Ian but not always your conclusions or tone. The use of [! ]Exclamation marks is akin to shouting, irritation, dismissal, confrontation or bullying in my mind.
‘The use of [! ]Exclamation marks is akin to shouting, irritation, dismissal, confrontation or bullying in my mind.’
Then you misinterpret me!