The study of the proper method of delivery of a religious message. In Christianity, homiletics is focused on the delivery of a sermon. Involved in homiletics is exegesis of the text of Scripture, finding the abiding theological principles, narrowing the subject into a deliverable form, rhetoric and style, and application of the sermon to a contemporary audience. Normally, a trained seminarian will take courses on homiletics in order to train them as communicators of the Gospel.
(Extract from the Introduction to J N Darby's German translation of the New Testament, known as the Elberfeld version, dated 1855 - translated from the German by A. Hardy Estam of Dorchester MA, now with the Lord. Supplied by R Gorgas.)
The Holy Spirit Himself draws our attention to the need of an understanding of the divine will, as a means of our safety in the last days; and the esteem for the Holy Scriptures in these last days is a proof that God is being honoured. The efforts of the enemy, too, are mainly directed against His Word. While the scholar can examine it in the original text, the way for it is closed to the unlearned and to the one who does not know the language of the original text. It was therefore our endeavour and our purpose to come to the aid of the latter and to present to them, with little expense, an as faithful and exact rendering of the Word of God, in their own language, as possible.
Any translation will, indeed, be more or less imperfect, and how great the difficulties are to transfer the expressions of a language, especially those of the rich Greek language, into another language, will only those recognize who have attempted to execute a translation.
We can claim, however, with a good conscience that we have worked with all care in order to render the Word of God as faithfully as possible, and we entertain the hope that even the unskilled reader will find our translation simple and understandable.
It is certainly possible that we could have clothed some passage into a more beautiful German; only, without being slaves of the words, the thought always guided us that an as faithful rendering of the original text as possible outweighed any other consideration, so much the more as we believe with a perfect conviction in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as the revelation of the infinite wisdom of God and the expression of His gracious character in Christ Jesus.
Seeing, however, that no one is able to grasp the whole extent of this revelation and that there is often a meaning hidden within a sentence that transcends the comprehension of the translator, which is lost in a free translation, but could be discovered in a more exact one through a deeper instruction of the Holy Spirit, it is thus an imperative necessity to reproduce the Word of the original text as it were in a mirror.
It goes without saying that the limit of this exactness cannot be drawn so closely that the sentence which has been translated into another language would thereby lose all intelligibility and consequently remain meaningless.
A Scene from Pilgrim's ProgressI realize that most of our readers will have no objection whatsoever to the idea that God’s love is universal. Most of us were weaned on this notion, being taught as children to sing songs like, “Jesus loves the little children; all the children of the world.” Many may never even have encountered anyone who denies that God’s love is universal.
Yet if I might take a moment to dwell on this issue, it is because I want to acknowledge that it poses a perplexing difficulty for other aspects of God’s revealed truth. Let us honestly admit that on the face of it, the universal love of God is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of election.
Election is a biblical doctrine, affirmed with the utmost clarity from beginning to end in Scripture. The highest expression of divine love to sinful humanity is seen in the fact that God set His love on certain undeserving sinners and chose them for salvation before the foundation of the world. There is a proper sense in which God’s love for His own is a unique, special, particular love determined to save them at all costs.
It is also true that when Scripture speaks of divine love, the focus is usually on God’s eternal love toward the elect. God’s love for mankind reaches fruition in the election of those whom He saves. And not every aspect of divine love is extended to all sinners without exception. Otherwise, all would be elect, and all would ultimately be saved. But Scripture clearly teaches that many will not be saved (Matt. 7:22–23). Can God sincerely love those whom He does not intervene to save?
British Baptist leader Erroll Hulse, dealing with this very question, has written,
How can we say God loves all men when the psalms tell us He hates the worker of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)? How can we maintain that God loves all when Paul says that He bears the objects of His wrath, being fitted for destruction, with great patience (Rom. 9:22)? Even more how can we possibly accept that God loves all men without exception when we survey the acts of God’s wrath in history? Think of the deluge which destroyed all but one family. Think of Sodom and Gomorrah. With so specific a chapter as Romans [1,] which declares that sodomy is a sign of reprobation, could we possibly maintain that God loved the population of the two cities destroyed by fire? How can we possibly reconcile God’s love and His wrath? Would we deny the profundity of this problem? (Erroll Hulse, “The Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today [Nov–Dec 1983], 18–19).
Yet Hulse realizes that if we take Scripture at face value, there is no escaping the conclusion that God’s love extends even to sinners whom He ultimately will condemn. “The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms,” Hulse writes. “He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked” (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). Hulse also cites Matthew 23:37, where Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem, then says, “We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.” (Ibid., 21–22)
It is crucial that we accept the testimony of Scripture on this question, for as Hulse points out,
We will not be disposed to invite wayward transgressors to Christ, or reason with them, or bring to them the overtures of the gospel, unless we are convinced that God is favorably disposed to them. Only if we are genuinely persuaded that He will have them to be saved are we likely to make the effort. If God does not love them it is hardly likely that we will make it our business to love them. Especially is this the case when there is so much that is repulsive in the ungodliness and sinfulness of Christ-rejecters. (Ibid., 18)
Biblically, we cannot escape the conclusion that God’s benevolent, merciful love is unlimited in extent. He loves the whole world of humanity. This love extends to all people in all times. It is what Titus 3:4 refers to as “the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind.” God’s singular love for the elect quite simply does not rule out a universal love of sincere compassion—and a sincere desire on God’s part to see every sinner turn to Christ.
Mark 10 relates a familiar story that illustrates God’s love for the lost. It is the account of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and began asking Him a great question: “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Scripture tells us:
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother’ ” (vv. 18–19).
Every aspect of Jesus’ reply was designed to confront the young man’s sin. Many people misunderstand the point of Jesus’ initial question: “Why do you call Me good?” Our Lord was not denying His own sinlessness or deity. Plenty of verses of Scripture affirm that Jesus was indeed sinless—“holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). He is therefore also God incarnate (Jn. 1:1). But Jesus’ reply to this young man had a twofold purpose: first, to underscore His own deity, confronting the young man with the reality of who He was; and second, to gently chide a brash young man who clearly thought of himself as good.
To stress this second point, Jesus quoted a section of the Decalogue. Had the young man been genuinely honest with himself, he would have had to admit that he had not kept the law perfectly. But instead, he responded confidently, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up” (v. 20). This was unbelievable impertinence on the young man’s part. It shows how little he understood of the demands of the law. Contrast his flippant response with how Peter reacted when he saw Christ for who He was. Peter fell on his face and said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Lk. 5:8). This rich young ruler’s response fell at the other end of the spectrum. He was not even willing to admit he had sinned.
So Jesus gave him a second test: “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Mk. 10:21).
Sadly, the young man declined. Here were two things he refused to do: he would not acknowledge his sin, and he would not bow to Christ’s lordship. In other words, he shut himself off from the eternal life he seemed so earnestly to be seeking. As it turned out, there were things more important to him than eternal life, after all. His pride and his personal property took priority in his heart over the claims of Christ on his life. And so he turned away from the only true Source of the life he thought he was seeking.
That is the last we ever see of this man in the New Testament. As far as the biblical record is concerned, he remained in unbelief. But notice this significant phrase, tucked away in Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” Here we are explicitly told that Jesus loved an overt, open, non-repentant, non-submissive Christ-rejector. He loved him.
I found that this passage was very intriguing , that there is
JND water of purification is changed into the wine of joy for the marriage-feast
The Wedding at Cana
2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
This started some questions , first the relationship of Jesus to his mother, was he appropriate to her here? Christ last conversation with her leads to the same address, "Woman" I think that in both cases there is no disrespect , but his was a different position, he was standing in wait fo r the direction from the Father, although in providence His glory is manifested through his birth mothers request.
I found help from Albert Barnes Notes on this passage
Jesus speaking with Mary his mother
But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to DELAY it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: "My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply
5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
This is the direction for service, @ Power Tower , we noticed that there was, in John 1 the Evangelist Andrew , who , often when mentioned is seen bringing others to Jesus, he we have unnamed servants who , are given direction of simple obedience, how difficult is this! To simply follow the directions of Christ!
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.[1]7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
These servants were the ones , that did exactly as they were asked and received the reward of obedience, seeing his 1st miracle, and the manifestation of his glory. That I would hear the voice of Christ, in the seemingly simple things , but the call is to obediance, which will open bigger doors of service and blessing , and knowing him better!
8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers[2] and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.
In Power Tower, we are looking @ the Wedding at Cana , and the cleansing of the temple. I am musing the connection of the jars of purification, and the wine making.
The following is from a "Plymouth Brethren" Writer John 2: 1-10.
All signs are miracles, that is to say, supernatural exercises of divine power. Yet all miracles are not signs, for signs convey some distinct teaching in addition to their display of power.
The first sign is given in the second chapter. Our Lord was there at the wedding feast at Cana as an invited guest. In the changing of the water into wine He manifested His glory. His act of power signified that He must superseded every human host. In this act He demonstrated that He was the true Host for Israel. He will bring in the joy of the kingdom in the coming day of marital festivity, but only after the waterpots have been filled with water of purification. The purifying fountain (see Zechariah 12 and 13) shall follow the great tribulation. Then Jehovah shall be called Husband by His people and shall no more be called Master. Then shall the joy of the vineyards be their portion when the door of hope is opened to Israel, culminating in the betrothal with all its attendant blessedness (Hosea 2: 14-23). Thus shall the Lord be Host and Husband to Israel in the coming day of His manifested glory. All this and much more is suggested in the consideration of this first sign. May we who belong, not to Israel but, to the heavenly family of God, learn from the sign that the gracious, lowly Stranger, who came unto His own and was not received by them — He who was unknown in the world His own hands had made — is none other than the Lord of glory.
