Posts Tagged ‘study notes’
Here is my second installment of this week’s study notes. These notes are for Psalm 22. There are 13 pages of notes, quotes, outlines, and exegesis. Author’s who are referenced include John Piper, Eugene Peterson, Stanley Hauerwas, Michael Wilcock, CS Lewis and more. You can download the entire MS Word formatted set of notes from my box.net account. Be Blessed.
May 10, 2009: Psalm 22, My God, My God
First, I noted that this is a song that was meant to be sung. “For the director of music” must mean that it was for the orchestra or choir director or both. Thus, there would be a performance of this song at the court, or perhaps in the temple. It is certainly not meant to be left lying flat on a piece of parchment collecting dust. Michael Wilcock interprets the Psalm through a number of lenses, one of them being ‘liturgy.’ He writes, ‘Psalms begin to appear which are suited, or intended, for corporate use. In this respect Psalm 22 is like Psalm 20 and 21. Although it is I who speak throughout, this is my praise in the great assembly, and in the congregation I will praise you (22:25, 22).” (Wilcock, Psalm 1-72 in the Bible Speaks Today Series, 79).
But I suspect this is only a part. Furthermore, how would this song be used in corporate worship? These are the words that one meant to come alive in the heart and spill out of the mouths of people. Yes, I agree that it is the personal lament of an individual, but the individual offered it to the director music for corporate singing. Then their collective experience would be ‘My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” Their voices, raised in chorus, repeating the same phrases thus would run from one end of the ebb to the other end of the flow (see my outline below). It is a way of recognizing that we suffer together (as in, when one part suffers we all do, when one part rejoices we all do). [But this is, of course, based on the assumption of the historical validity of the superscriptions which, I, in fact, accept.]
This Psalm is often understood as the solitary cry of an individual sufferer. So Zorn and Tesh write, “The one who suffered is not the nation, but an individual, calling on his brethren, ‘the sons of Jacob,’ to join him in praising God (22-23). Of course, the nature of the psalm is such that it could, and would, be used to bring comfort to all the people in times of national distress. Yet in its origin it is a reflection of individual suffering. (The writer refers to his tongue, his jaws, heart, clothing, etc).” (College Press NIV Commentary on the OT, Psalms, vol 1, 203). That is fine as far as it goes, but it seems not to take into account the superscription which made this a Psalm for the congregation to sing.
What does it say about us as a people when we, the collection of people, the congregation, willingly share in the lament and grief of an individual? What does it say about the individual when he asks the entire congregation not to run off without him but to stay behind and share his grief? (Galatians 6). Verses 3-5 describe Israel as a people who trusted God, a people who were not disappointed because God did deliver them.
In my ongoing series of posts on the current lectionary readings, I offer you these notes on 1 John 4:7-21. There are notes from DA Carson, Eugene Peterson, I Howard Marshall, Craig Keener, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and David Jackman among others. The notes focus mainly on John’s call to his congregation to love one another as this is the booked found in verses 7 & 21. There are 15 pages of notes in this study.
May 10, 2009: 1 John 4:7-21, Love One Another
Let us love one another. I know how this works. I know what it means, but I tell you the truth: Loving one another is not about uttering words or feeling some particular swelling of the heart. John says that the only possible explanation for loving one another is that we happen to know God. He says that the only possible outcome of our knowing God is that we love one another.
And if we do not love one another then it is not God we know regardless of how much we claim to ‘know’ about him. Knowledge begets action not mere facts. Whoever does not love does not know: It is that simple and that terrifying. Furthermore, John is not content to allow us to define love on our own terms either. No. No. No. Scripture contains its own definition of what love is and how we can know that it is God we know. Anyone can define love on their own terms. Anyone can create their own ideas about love, but John defines love on different terms altogether: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only son into the world that we might live through him.”
Here is my second installment of study notes for this week’s lectionary readings. This one focuses on Acts 4:5-12. The study focuses on the Spirit’s role, the Name, and the Exclusivity. Quotes from William Willimon, Richard Philips, John Stott, Robert Tannehill, LJ Olgivie, DA Carson, Eugene Peterson, Aijith Fernando, Mark Driscoll, and more. There are 13 pages worth of notes, quotes, and commentary. There is Here’s an excerpt:
The leaders seemed to think that the church was no threat until the church started preaching in Jesus’ name. The world can safely ignore the church until we start making such exclusive claims about Jesus. The church is beside the point until Jesus is brought into the conversation. That is when the world begins to act in opposition. As long as the church is merely a glorified, so to speak, social services or dr phil, the world has no problem with us. It’s that pesky Name; that pesky Jesus whom the world crucified—But God resurrected! God issued his verdict on Jesus and God’s verdict on Jesus ran and runs contrary to the world’s verdict on Jesus. Thus, the world is in opposition.
Acts 4:5-12, The Name of Jesus, May 3, 2009
UPDATE: Access complete sermon mansucipt: No Other Name
Or download the MS Word manuscript here from box.net; formatted for your convenience.
There is no other Name given by which men must be saved. What else on earth could possibly be of interest to the church but the Name of Jesus? Have we lost our nerve? Have we grown weary of the Name? Have we lost interest in the Name above all Names? Have we tired of the Name at which every knee will bow and every tongue confess? Do we think that people will be more interested in us if we preach something different or something softer or something more compelling or something more interesting?
This is the audio from the sermon I preached this morning, The Resurrection Changes Everything. It was based on the Gospel lesson from this week’s Lectionary reading in Luke 24:36-49. I hope you are blessed by this message. In the text for today, the Resurrected Jesus appears among his disciples–from there, things really heat up in the church.
You can download the audio at Luke 24:36-49 or listen to the audio using the inline player below.
Soli Deo Gloria!
I have posted new prayer thoughts and homiletical points at A Pastor’s Prayer Journal. Here’s an excerpt:
I have studied through Mark in depth five or six times and taught it in various situations at least four or five times. It is my favorite Gospel of the four perhaps because of it’s quick pace, literary value, and brutal honesty. The Gospel itself is marked (no pun) by the constant use of a small Greek phrase ‘kai euthus’, which means something like ‘and then’ or ‘immediately’ or ‘at once.’ The NIV, as do most translations, I noticed translates it differently so as to give the Gospel ‘flavor’ (although it appears that the NASB is fairly consistent in its use of ‘immediately’). This creates a sense of urgency in the Gospel as if Mark were always in a hurry to get us from one point to the next, never content to leave us lingering too long at one scene. In the overall picture, we know where Mark is in a hurry to get us and by the time we get to the crucifixion the pace has slowed (in my judgment) considerably. He wants us to drink deeply at this point.
The thoughts are from Mark 1 and 2.