tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126343678626870694.post6055438794706165194..comments2024-03-27T21:30:14.167-07:00Comments on Chastened Intuitions: Tuesday Tidbit: the wounds of a "friend"Carmen Imeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02667112934218176967noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126343678626870694.post-86953328532746926172013-09-13T06:20:40.386-07:002013-09-13T06:20:40.386-07:00Wow, Maggie. Cool story!
Jennifer, It's great...Wow, Maggie. Cool story!<br /><br />Jennifer, It's great to hear from you. I'm so sorry to hear that your church is not open and ready to fully appreciate your gifts. It's a good reminder that the freedoms I enjoy are not necessarily the norm, and that as a church we have a long ways to go.<br /><br />I LOVE your question about Luke. It's such a great question! I think that the "gospel" Jesus wanted them to preach is that the kingdom of God had arrived -- as evidenced by the victory over demons and sickness (see Luke 4:16–21 for Jesus' inauguration of this preaching ministry). In spite of Roman occupation, God was the true king! As Isaiah promised, God's kingdom had finally come.<br /><br />I checked Darrell Bock's well-respected commentary (in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series), and he said of Luke 9:6, "The equation of kingdom and gospel is important, since one points to the other" (1:818). Joel Green's commentary (New International Commentary on the New Testament) says it this way: "their proclamation of the 'kingdom of God' calls into question the ongoing potency of any other kingdom, particularly over the kingdom of the devil that works to enslave persons. The kingdom Jesus preached in word and deed, and so the kingdom communicated by his ambassadors, is the inbreaking presence of the reign and realm of God's saving activity to effect liberty in all its forms" (358). This is truly good news, an indication that salvation is on its way!<br /><br />Either of these commentaries would be a great guide as you continue to work through the book of Luke.<br />I hope that helps!<br /><br />CarmenCarmen Imeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02667112934218176967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126343678626870694.post-6574417677178492822013-09-12T13:34:39.914-07:002013-09-12T13:34:39.914-07:00I know I'm not nearly as "intellectual&qu...I know I'm not nearly as "intellectual" as those among whom you work & study, but even here in my little town, I have been called a "Bible snob" by one of my pastors (just because I said "The Message" was a paraphrase, not a translation). I've also been called "too brainy" to teach kids by other leaders (and because I'm female, the elders won't allow me to even lead an adult class through provided curriculum because I might accidentally teach a man). <br />One of the pastors even once told the congregation in a sermon, "The definition of 'exegesis' is 'loving the study of Scripture more than God.'" And because the majority of the folks don't know any better, they probably think what he said is true, and don't want to risk being "intellectual."<br />By the way, I'm memorizing Luke and now I'm getting to chapter 9 where Jesus sends out the Twelve. It says that they "preached the gospel" and it made me wonder: what was the gospel at that time, being that Jesus hadn't yet died for our sins & rose again (which is what I usually hear recited as the gospel), and therefore how much did the disciples understand at that time to "preach the gospel" (since right up to His death they still didn't seem to get that He was supposed to die for our sins and that He would rise again)? I'm sure there are some Bible scholars who have asked and attempted answering this two-fold question. Could you help me know where to look?Dzhenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06464701948348572332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126343678626870694.post-26789489152008669702013-09-10T07:22:17.503-07:002013-09-10T07:22:17.503-07:00Thanks for posting this, Carmen. Mark Noll was not...Thanks for posting this, Carmen. Mark Noll was not yet teaching at Wheaton when I was an undergrad, but he was still on the faculty when we moved here 11 years ago. Although he didn't know me from Adam (make that Eve) he graciously agreed to review a manuscript I wrote about Sarah Pierpont Edwards for the 2003 Edwards Tercentennial Celebration in New England. It still amazes me that a scholar of his stature would take the time to do that!Maggie Rowehttp://www.maggierowe.comnoreply@blogger.com