He spoke and galaxies whirled into place, stars burned the heavens, and planets began orbiting their suns – words of awesome, unlimited, unleashed power. He spoke again and the waters and lands were filled with plants and creatures, running, swimming, growing, and multiplying – words of animating, breathing, pulsing life. Again He spoke and man and woman were formed, thinking, speaking, and loving – words of personal and creative glory. Eternal, infinite, unlimited – He was, is, and always will be the Maker and Lord of all that exists. And then He came in the flesh to a speck in the universe called planet earth. The mighty Creator became a part of the creation, limited by time and space and susceptible to age, sickness, and death. But love propelled Him, and so He came to rescue and save those who were lost and to give them the gift of eternity. He is the Word (John 1:1); He is the Bread of Life (6:35); He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (14:6); He is the Giver of Living Water (4:13-14); He is Jesus, the Christ. Without light, water, and food there could be no life. It is exactly these elements that John uses as symbols in his Gospel to present Jesus as the Light, Water and Food to the reader. Each of these symbols is a vital part of the context of eternal life though for this study the focus will be on water, and its symbolism in the book of John. We will firstly consider the meaning of Johannine symbolism, Following, the significance of the water motif in the Old and New Testament, the characteristics of John’s use of the Old Testament and the Johannine writings. We will end our study with the eschatology and the symbolic meaning of water in John 4. / Prof. J.A. du Rand

This thesis sets out to examine a section of the canonical text of the gospel of Matthew (Matthew 21-25) with a view to its contribution to the search for knowledge of Jesus as an historical figure. Methodologically, then, this thesis respects the literary coherence of the final form of the gospel of Matthew, but raises the question of its significance for an understanding of the historical Jesus. In an attempt to offer a fresh analysis of the material, the thesis takes up the use of the models of 'prophet' and 'sage' in contemporary scholarship, and investigates the theme of judgement in selected portions of the canonical and non-canonical Jewish literature associated with the prophets and the sages at the time of Jesus. It emerges that Jesus' proclamation of judgement reflects previous canonical themes found in both prophetic and Wisdom literature. Such deep dependence upon Jewish prophetic and Wisdom literature does not inevitably result in either Schweitzer's prophet of the imminent end or the 'non-eschatological sage' of Borg and others. Matthew portrays Jesus as prophet by means of his accounts of Jesus' prophetic acts, his declaration of impending national catastrophe and his warning of eschatological judgement. Matthew portrays Jesus as sage by means of his emphasis on the provocative aphoristic and narrative meshalim which Jesus employs to expose the errors of the Jewish religious leaders and to declare judgement upon them. He also highlights Jesus' emphasis, typical of Wisdom literature, on the judgement of God upon injustice, while not hesitating to indicate the eschatological element in Jesus' Wisdom sayings. Of particular significance in the ongoing discussion over Jesus' eschatological expectations, which are clearly of great significance for his teaching and actions relating to judgement, is the nature of 'apocalyptic' language. This thesis therefore discusses the biblical language at the centre of this debate in the light of its location in Matthew's text and considering the most likely background to his thinking. We conclude that many scholars have driven too great a wedge between what is 'apocalyptic' and what is 'prophetic', and propose that 'apocalyptic' texts in Matthew are best interpreted with the canonical prophetic literature as the most significant backdrop. We submit that when this material is read in its canonical background, its significance becomes clear so that it is no longer necessary to regard it as predictive of the parousia but rather symbolic of a great vindication of Jesus. In particular, when these sayings are interpreted in their context in Matthew's gospel, according to the approach to 'apocalyptic' language argued for in the thesis, they may be understood as natural and appropriate sayings of Jesus. That is, by means of recognising their coherence with the narrative in which they are set when interpreted in a manner in keeping with their most likely literary background, these sayings may be said to have a substantial claim to being authentic portions of the teaching of the historical Jesus. The thesis concludes that Matthew presents Jesus as one who embodies the prophet and the teacher of Wisdom, and who goes beyond these figures in important ways as he takes to himself the role of judgement in a way that is highly distinctive among the religious figures of his day.

No description available.

No description available.

The Christian congregation in Corinth found Paul’s “weak” presentation of the gospel and his approach to ministry to be scandalous. Recently arrived “apostles” reinforced and accentuated attitudes the congregation had already imbibed from contemporary Corinthian culture. As a result many in the congregation were less than satisfied with Paul’s manner of speech, his apparent lack of “charismatic” qualities, his refusal to accept money from them, his lack of commendatory letters, and his lifestyle that was characterised by suffering, affliction, opposition and weakness. However, Paul’s criteria for evaluating ministry, and by implication God’s criteria, were significantly different from those of the Corinthian congregation. Key verses such as 2 Cor 1:9; 3:5; 4:7; 6:7; 12:9 and 13:4 indicate that Paul maintained that Christian life and ministry generally, and apostolic ministry in particular, must be carried out through divine power, not human power. His apostolic ministry was valid because it was exercised as God’s representative, in God’s presence (2:17), with God as judge (5:10) and as a result of God’s mercy (4:1), not as a result of his own power, authority, eloquence or charismatic presence. The theological underpinning for Paul’s approach to ministry is found in 13:4 where Christ who “was crucified as a result of weakness, but lives as a result of God’s power” is the model for Paul who “shares in his weakness”, but in ministry to the Corinthians, also “lives as a result of God’s power”. Paul’s model for ministry was one of dependence on God. This is most clearly demonstrated in the “affliction” he experienced in Asia where he despaired of life itself, but in the process learned to rely on “God who raises the dead”. Thus his suffering, weakness and affliction, far from being disqualifiers for ministry, were in fact, demonstrations of his authenticity as a minister whose competency came from God and not from himself (3:6).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 82-89).

Summary of the Thesis Beliefs oonoerning the origin of evil oan be traoed through primitive stages in the Old Testament, in whioh the "woes" of life were attributed direotly to the hand of God, through later stages in whioh developing moral sensitivity made Old Testament man uneasy about finding the origin of what was morally wrong in God, and finally through the struggles of the Apoorypha and Pseudepigrapha with the question of the origin of moral evil. In the latter, the pressures of Hellenism added to the oomplexity of the problem, sinoe , whether oonsciously or not, these later Jewish thinkers were oaught up in streams of influenoe which shaped the form of their thought , and to some extent its oontent as well. The rise of angelology and demonology in the inter-Testament period can be seen both as evidence for the influence of foreign religious thought, and as an attempt to come to grips with the question o~ where moral evil had its point of origin. We find efforts to cope with the problem of evil not only in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, but also in the thought of Philo , of Qumran, of the Gnostics, and of Rabbinic Judaism, all of which take up positions on the matter , thus pointing out direotions in whioh ' the New Testament declined to move, whioh may be regarded as signifioant. Within the New Testament no unified approach to the problem of evil oan be disoovered , though there is a large fund of oommon assumptions , and in general the thought does not stray from this area of oonsent. The basic position can be described as being in agreement with the Old Testament view in placing the blame for sin on man himself; this is contrary to the direction in which Bome of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are moving, for the latter sometimes seek an outlet for the problem by placing the burden of blame on demonic powers . Although the New Testament knows of demonic forces , and particularly of the l eader of the demons, Satan, the teaching about these demonic powers never obscures the more fundamental responsibility that man bears for his own sinfulness . In the end , the position i s not really far from the Old Testament, where the demons play a very small role indeed; the larger place they have in the New Testament does not seem to include a large share of responsibility for the origin of moral evil. The New Testament brings to clearer expression the Old Testament hesitation to attribute evil to God, and in the main denies outright that moral evil is in any r espect God's responsibility. The Synoptic Gospels and Aots display a good deal of agreement on who is responsible for sinful behavior: man is seen as bringing evil into being bJ' his choice of the wrong rather than the right in a series of ethical and moral decisions. But Matthew and Luke have obviously given much more thought to the problem of ethical and moral behavior than has Mark ; the latter is not so much interested in sin as the former two. Demonic forces bear a larger role in the Synoptic Gospels than anywhere else in the New Testament . Yet, their role is not so large as to make it possible to attribute evil directly to them . The company of demons does not seem to have anything to do with causing moral evil, being limited to the infliction of physical woes; Satan alone influences moral behavior, and he seems to be dependent for his success in temptation upon two factors: the permission of God, and the consent of man. Man brings evil into being by choosing what is contrary to the will of God; this choice of the wrong way may please Satan, but he cannot bring it about apart from human consent. Although Paul is in basic agreement with the Synoptic Gospels on the subject of human responsibility for the origin of moral evil , he approaches the problem of sin from a completely different angle . For him, sin is a force , a power; it is something rising from within and corrupting everything it touches - the Law, the institutions of secular life, and the moral behavior of man. Paul does not explain what initiated this drive toward wrong-doing, though it seems probable that the transgression of Adam enters into the picture. Paul ' s real interest is in the present fact of sin, and more particularly in Christ's victory over the powers of sin and over death, the "wages" of sin. There is frequent mention of "principalities and powers," and it is argued in this thesis that these may plausibly be explained as being the spiritual forces behind God's providential design for governing the world, forces which are not evil in their essential nature, but which have been corrupted by human sin. Paul shows practically no interest in demons which can be compared with those of the Synoptics ; he speaks more often of Satan, but Satan is not really central to his pattern of thought. In essence, moral evil for Paul rises in the clash of will between God and man, and sin is man's choice to seek powers and prerogatives which are properly the Bole possession of God. Jesus shows the way of renunciation of power and self-will as being the only means of victory over sin , and in turn the way to genuine power, by God's gift , and not by seizure. John stylizes the whole problem of sin, abstracting from individual choices of right and wrong, and causing everything to hinge on one great Choice: whether to be a follower of God, or to be a follower of the devil . Ethical choice is still in view, but it is in the background. Predestination is a constantly recurring theme . The stress on God ' s absolute power in determining the affairs of men seems to move John to the brink of attributing the origin of moral evil to God - yet John draws back from this position, and an examination of his more basic assumptions shows that whatever John says about God ' s sovereignty, he intends to convey the impression, that God is seeking the good, the salvation, the redemption of the world, and that man ' s refusal of his proffered salvation is what brings about moral evil and intensifies ,the moral evil which already exists. The devil bears a larger role than elsewhere in the New Testament; yet, John does not seem to believe that the devil oan initiate moral evil among men, but rather that he simply encourages man in sinful behavior. The rest of the New Testament cannot be briefly summarized; eaoh author seems to have some peouliar slant on the origin of sinful behavior. Particular mention might be made of the Book of Revelation, which has a good deal to say about demonic power 's , B.lj.d gives Satan a very important role . But Revelation is not discussing sin and its source , but rather the destruction of sinful powers at the end of the Age . This makes it difficult to come to any co~clusions as to what thought the author may have entertained on the beginnings of moral evil.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1984. / Bibliography: leaves [105-110]