Tag Archives: interpretation

The Information Presented

15 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

It has been said that perception is reality. This might be the case in many circumstances, but it is not always that way. In fact, for some, their perception may not be reality at all, but delusion! Delusion does not apply in the following examples, however. In 2 Samuel 16 are two examples of this “failed” reality. The first is with regard to David’s interaction with Ziba, and the second would be Shimei’s response to David. As one reads about the melancholy experiences of David, it is important to remember that David was facing three points that forcefully presented themselves. First, his own response to what was happening. He knew the Lord brought this about, and it was his belief (perception) the Lord was against him. Second, he was perplexed as to why Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, would turn against him after he did what he did for him. Third, as David was fleeing from his son Absalom, Shemei made it a point to perceive (interpret) what was occurring as the Lord’s judgment against because David was a bloodthirsty man. This was the reality as each man saw it—and it was a mistaken reality. The Lord was not against David, though He let David know that there was a consequence to David’s previous actions (12:9-12). Shemei was terribly wrong and bowed before David in penitence when David returned from having fled from Jerusalem (19:18-20). Ziba lied to David about Mephibosheth (19:24-28). What we have in these cases are examples of incomplete knowledge. It is a reminder to each of us that before one concludes dogmatically about a situation, let there be certainty that all the information that is available is received and, then, interpreted correctly. Until then, be cautious, gracious, and merciful in handling the information presented. RT

 

That is What Jesus Did

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Behavior, Communication

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

It is so easy to allow the words of others to defeat us. In John 7, Jesus could have allowed the words spoken by others to defeat, or even shape Him if He desired to be controlled by them. “Then the Jews sought Him at the feast, and said, ‘Where is He?’ And there was much complaining among the people concerning Him. Some said, ‘He is good’; others said, ‘No, on the contrary, He deceives the people. However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews” (John 7:11-13, NKJV). There was much confusion surrounding what the people thought about Jesus. Sometimes it is that way with regard to us. Since we can’t control what others think – what shall we do? We want to be sure that when others interpret what they see and hear the only “material” given them is that which glorifies the Lord. That is what Jesus did and we need to do the same.

Words, Defeat, Victory

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Communication, Relationship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Communication is both a wonderful things and an occasion for much heartache. Jesus, the very logos (word) of God knew well how to communicate in all areas of life. There was never a time, in my view, wherein He did communicate exactly the Father’s will and in the perfect way demanded by the occasion. That does not mean, however, that His words were always understood as He intended them.

On one occasion, a woman from outside the area of Israel came appealing to Jesus for her daughter, asking Him to heal her. Jesus replied that it was proper for the children to get the food, not the little dogs (Mark 7:24-30). Those who read the New Testament might wonder if Jesus was ascribing to her some inferior status; many of the Jews did as they considered those outside Israel to be dogs (“Jews used the word for Gentiles who were considered to be ceremonially impure” p. 150, note in The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear).

How easy it would have been for this woman on that particular occasion to take exception to Jesus because the implication of the words can’t be missed by any who hear them. It might be an easy response, but the woman appealing to Jesus took the words much differently. Rather than finding fault, she clearly understood the figurative significance of the words and “[s]he turned the word of seeming approach, house dogs, into a reason for optimism, thereby transforming and impending defeat into a brilliant victory” (Hendriksen, p. 299).

We can be defeated by the words of another, whether one intends to defeat us with those words or not; or we can take the words used and turn them into an opportunity to teach, bringing glory to the Lord. Taking advantage like this brings victory.

A Mistake in Interpretation

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

It is a mistake in interpretation to look upon the Law of Moses as a decree of God that could (or would) save a person. Note what Paul said in Romans 8:3, “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (ESV).

Pay particular attention to the commas, and remove the phrase between the commas and then read what is said: “For God has done what the law could not do.” Why could not the Law of Moses save? Because it was not designed to save anyone (cf. Acts 13:39), but to point out something the Lord wanted man to know: there is such a thing as sin, and it is damning! In the early stages of man’s existence, this concept was not unfamiliar, but now with a law in place, the Lord removed what excuse man was prone to make (Romans 3:19-20).

Thus, the Jew who tried to gain justification with God via the Law of Moses could not do so because the law brought to man’s knowledge his inability to hit “God’s mark” (sin means to miss the mark). Not only that, however, but in order to help man hit the mark, the Lord declared what kind of response man was to give, and He used Abraham to illustrate the point: faith. Note what Paul said, “but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works” (Romans 9:31-32, ESV). In other words, they used their perceived “obedience” (or compliance) to the God’s (or the Law’s) demands as “work” to be done, and then “payment” to be made by the one who made the demand. Consequently, they thought, God “owed” them wages for that which they did, and this, they believed, was salvation.

The Law of Moses had a purpose, and that purpose included bringing the Savior into this world (Galatians 3:13-16, 19-27; 4:4). Thus, no one could be saved by the Law of Moses, even if lived perfectly. Those who tried, failed; they failed because, among other things, they failed to understand its purpose.

Did I Not Understand Correctly?

18 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Leadership

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Communication is important. If you have been around for any length of time you have already come to understand how easy it is for the writing of one person to be misunderstood by readers of that one person’s writing. This is the result, often times, of the lack of clarity on the part of the one who wrote, but many more times, it is a failure of the reader to take time to understand.

Recently, on my blog, I posted some remarks with regard to the writing (blog) of Frank Viola. He posted some sentiments on the myth of leadership. The topic intrigued me. I scanned and then printed his blog article; later that day I read it not once, but twice. Thinking I clearly understood what he said, I wrote my own words in reply to it; he read what I wrote and said that he and I understand the topic the same. I was perplexed by the remark of his, but wanting to do the right thing, I quickly advanced an apology for misreading what he said.

Last evening I read again what he said and, after this third reading, I said to myself that I didn’t misread what he said. His words were too plain for me to have done so. If you have read my remarks previous you’ll note that I said that within the local congregation the elders of that church are the leaders. He maintains the elders are not the leaders. Here is what he said: “Overseers/elders are not ‘the’ leaders of the local church. They simply lead in a specific capacity that’s different from the other members of the church.”

The difference between him and me is with regard to the use of the word the in relationship to leadership, in particular the elders/overseers of the congregation. I maintain, strongly, that elders/bishops/overseers in the local congregation are the leaders of that congregation. He does not. If he did not mean to say what the complete two sentences make plain that he did say, then he needed to say what I have quoted him to say a little differently. However, he did say it, and I did not misunderstand it.

Just as it is the obligation of the speaker/writer to make sure clarity is forthcoming, it is also the obligation of the hearer/reader to make sure it is understood before an adequate reply is forthcoming. If this does not take place communication does not occur.