Category: Interpretation

Scriptural authority and theological interpretation are two distinct and different topics. According to Entwistle (2021), scripture is incredibly authoritative, and those who do this place their views on the same level of authority as scripture itself. Theological interpretation takes precedence over psychological interpretation, which a person may have, and a persons knowledge of things must be reviewed, perhaps leading to incorrect conclusions. When erroneous findings are discovered, it is an excellent time to reassess the data that underpins theological and psychological decisions. According to colonists, people may experience emotional distress due to the disparities that have arisen, and they will have to work harder to deal with and work through them. The distinction is critical since the information discovered may not be accurate. Regardless of what life has provided an individual, theology delves into the basis on which God brought that individual to life (Entwistle, 2021). As a result, without a thorough understanding of theology, one can never comprehend the foundations of Gods mechanisms of creating the world and his people. On the other hand, psychology can reveal where a person has been their entire life.

While Entwistle differentiates between theological interpretation and scriptural authority, colonists final commitment is to theology (Peterson, 2016). They intended to place scripture atop nature but were concerned that it would be misinterpreted. Nature has less power than Scripture (Entwistle, 2021). Anyone can make mistakes when it comes to an understanding of the Bible. This models literature is based chiefly on theological interpretation and scriptural citation. Failure to do so resulted in a lack of knowledge of the difference between theological interpretation and scriptural authority. Instead, they relied on their convictions, which resulted in confusion and theological imperialism. As a result, they start to believe that their mode of thinking has authority behind it (Entwistle, 2021). Everyone should be aware that scripture is authoritative, especially true for those who believe the Bible is true.

It is the conviction that the Bible is supreme, and it is impossible to have Gods word without having Gods works. However, colonialists see Gods word as troublesome because they apply their way of thinking to it, resulting in an ambiguous interpretation (Entwistle, 2021). Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding, says Proverbs 3:5 (Loader, 2014). They are doing this, and they do not consider Gods word to be authoritative.

Psychologists interpretations are less essential than theological clarification, This interpretation is vital because theology is grounded on the Bible and what it examines. They are apprehensive that nature could be misinterpreted, resulting in inaccurate results (Entwistle, 2021). A persons first notion is indeed their ultimate opinion. Both psychological and theological expositions can be false; methodologies, premises, and psychological or theological data collection may result in erroneous findings (Entwistle, 2021). When things are misrepresented, it is crucial to investigate the issue and not assert or depend on somebody elses premises. Let everyone be obedient to the ruling authorities, writes Romans 13:1 Harvey, 2017), because there is no authority besides that which God has established. The Lord is the origin of everything excellent and unblemished.

When people go through the Bible and come across a scripture that they do not understand, they should first refer to a religious person who is well-versed in scripture to help them better understand the passage they are studying. Then, they can explain it to them in their own words. The answers are considerably different when one questions the pastor, but the referenced meaning remains the same, just more in-depth. Some people will perceive the scripture differently than when others read it. That does not mean that their approach is wrong but that everyone reacts differently to the reading. Therefore, attending Bible study or theology studies is beneficial to understanding scriptures actual and correct meaning.

Reference

Entwistle, D. N. (2021). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Cascade Books.

Harvey, J. D. (2017). Romans. B & H Academic.

Loader, J. A. (2014). Proverbs 1-9. Peeters.

Peterson, R. S. (2016). Darren Sarisky, Scriptural Interpretation: A Theological Exploration. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, 292pp. $102.95 / £65.00. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 18(1), 108112.

Introduction

The Epistle of Paul to Philemon (otherwise known as Philemon) is a book included in the Christian New Testament. The most common interpretation of the book was that Paul wrote a letter to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, who was a runaway slave that had wronged his owner. Throughout his writings, Paul used the language of slavery versus freedom. As at the time of the writings setting, slavery was very common, the letter tried to alleviate the suffering of some slaves since Paul put a pastoral focus on the problem.

Social-scientific criticism of the Philemon is the most suitable approach to hermeneutics since it is concerned with the understanding of political, cultural, social, and religious dynamics of the text as perceived by the original audience of the writings. Since the book of Philemon includes the language of slavery versus freedom as a metaphor, analyzing this biblical text with the help of social-scientific criticism will hold the most ground.

Thesis and Points to Back It Up

Because modern views on slavery are completely different to the ones that existed in the ancient Roman society, analyzing Pauls Letter to Philemon from the standpoint of social-scientific criticism is the most practical approach that reveals the peculiarities of both views:

1. Slavery was institutionalized in the ancient Roman society, although society considers it unacceptable today;
2. The modern reader will not agree with Pauls stance nor will he or she will understand the contradictions in the Letter to Philemon;
3. Emic and etic of the Letter to Philemon do not coincide.

The Aim of Social-Scientific Criticism, and the Impact of This Approach on the Interpretation of the Text

Social-scientific criticism (SSC) of the Bible is a hermeneutical method which constructs an interpretation of the Biblical text by considering its social and cultural nuances, therefore putting the interpretation into the environmental context; this is done by employing models, theories, and methods of research that are typical of the social sciences.¹

It should be stressed that, due to the fact that SSC is an element of the historical-critical method of exegesis, SSC views the Biblical texts as meaningful configurations of language which were utilized as a means of creating communication between the readers of the text and its authors. Consequently, social-scientific criticism examines the following aspects of the texts from the Bible:

1. The social issues pertaining to content and form, as well as the factors that have an impact on the results of the process of communication;²
2. The presence and nature of the connection between such elements of the texts as its linguistic, social, theological, and literary components;
3. The manner in which the textual communication taking place between the creator of the text and the texts audience can be viewed as a response to a particular socio-cultural environment, and how the text was created as a means of transferring the information from the books author to its reader. ³

The interests of historians and hermeneutics specialists are usually limited to the ideas and the concepts of theological thought. It is important to mention that the criticism of Biblical text requires considerations of relationships and connections between behaviors and beliefs  relationships between beliefs existing in the culture and the social and economic context within which that culture exists.

SCC makes an attempt to analyze the mentioned issues both at textual and social context levels, thus requiring that the condition that the communication in the text was informed by the cultural conditions in which it took place is met. Consequently, it is needed to employ a method that may permit identifying and analyzing the cultural and environmental conditions that played a critical role in determining the way in which the communication in question took place.⁴

Social-scientific criticism may be aligned with the contextual analysis of the biblical text as it considers the aspects of social, historical, political, and other factors that determine the context and the setting of the text.⁵ Since the beginning of the 1970s, more historians and specialists in the sphere of hermeneutics have been using the social science theory in order to explain biblical texts as well as the social interactions described within them. Wayne Meeks, Gerd Theissen, John Gager, Fernando Belo, and others have pioneered the application of the social-scientific criticism of biblical text and established a foundation upon which an expanding stream of hermeneutical approaches along with the social-scientific directions have started to build.

It should be pointed out that the critics who employ the method of the social-scientific analysis usually take as an assumption that all the knowledge has its roots in the society, and that without such an assumption, the hermeneutics of the Biblical texts may be considered impossible, as it might be impossible if no religious assumptions are made.⁶ It has also been suggested that the interpretation of the contents of the Bible ought to provide the clarification of the social position of the interpreters, not only of the social location of the texts authors.⁷

The Relation of the Social-Scientific Interpretation of the Text to the Christian Tradition and to the Contemporary Context, and its Application to the Modern Issues

When it comes to social-scientific criticism of biblical texts, it is also necessary to distinguish between the emic (existing within a social group) and the etic (existing from an observers perspective).

In hermeneutics, the emic denotes the ancient sources such as the Bible itself, whereas the etic refers to the scholars and readers of these sources who live today; discerning these two notions permits for creating an awareness of the fact that there exist numerous gaps which separate the todays world from the situations described in the literary sources of the past, which, in turn, prompts the individuals who engage in the interpretation of these sources to consider the plausibility structures ⁸ which make a contribution to the development of those notions and beliefs existing in the test which strike the contemporary readers as superstitious, bizarre, and/or counter-scientific. Thus, it is clear that introducing this distinction allows for lowering the amount of ethnocentric and anachronistic assessments of the Biblical texts.

In addition, it may permit for limiting the eager and inappropriate use of the texts originating in the ancient times for the purpose of analysis of the ethical issues which exist nowadays. To give an example of such an inappropriate use employing the example of the Letter to Philemon to this discussion, it would be inappropriate to judge the institute of slavery that existed at the time of the writing from the modern perspective, according to which slavery is wrong. Similarly, it would be ineffective to apply the contemporary views of freedom and equality to the non-egalitarian society of the ancient times.

Formal Analysis

The main body of the letter to Philemon from Paul deals with a specific crisis. In the case of the text, the crisis was not associated with either confused or doctrinal morality. While Paul was always concerned with strengthening the ideas of Christian faith, in this letter, he was interested in strengthening the relationships between two people. The formal analysis of Pauls showed a conventional pattern of deliberative requests addressed to persuade a person to a specific point while maintaining the integrity of all parties involved in a crisis.

Initially, the exordium prepared the reader of the letter to hear out the first request by creating an atmosphere of friendship, respect, and brotherhood.⁹ The second section of the letter demonstrates that Paul had the best intentions at heart when appealing to Philemon. His appeal was supported by providing reasons why Philemon would benefit from the decision to take Onesimus back  a highly diplomatic move.

Furthermore, Paul made an appeal to Onesimus only after developing a relationship with Philemon that was not coercive: I appeal to you my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains.¹⁰ The final part of the letter contains the deliberate rhetoric of peroration¹¹ during which the author repeated his initial appeal on a more personal basis: Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.¹²

Social-Scientific Criticism as Applied to the Book of Philemon: Historical and Contextual Analysis

When interpreting Pauls Letter to Philemon from the social-scientific perspective, it is crucial to understand that the background of slavery in the ancient world is the most prominent theme.¹³ It should be noted that at the time which is described in the text, masters owned their slaves; however, it is also important slaves could sell themselves into slavery from their own initiative, earn wages for their work, buy themselves out of slavery and become, and purchase other slaves for themselves even while still being slaves. Because slaves came from a variety of backgrounds, many of them were doctors, artists, and philosophers.

In the society of the Ancient Rome, slavery was not related to racism, as it was in 17-19 centuries in America; on the other hand, it was simply viewed as an instrument for dealing with manual labor. This context may explain the contents of the letter to Philemon. For instance, if a critic does not apply the stereotype of American slavery and gets an understanding of slavery at the time of the texts setting, everything will make more sense. For instance, answering the question of Why did not Paul advocate for the freeing of all slaves? will be possible by stating that at that time, the system had been not as abusive or cruel as it used to be, for instance, in the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States.

Because the modern interpretations of slavery are different from the ones that existed in the ancient society, it is not surprising that Paul does not argue for or against slavery. Because slavery was deeply integrated into the society, its abolition could have had an unthinkable political effect.¹⁴ Paul did not question whether slavery was right or wrong, although, he did state that slavery was a human institution, which he believed would fade away like many other human institutions. It could be so that Paul had faith in the coming return of Jesus. Thus, it can be concluded that Paul saw his present as something that would pass.

Slavery is one of the most disputed topics among historians and those interested in the social-scientific aspect of interpretation. When applying the Letter to Philemon to the discussion about slavery, it is evident that the author of the text neither encouraged slavery nor spoke against it, which reflects his diplomatic intentions that will be discussed further. For instance, while Paul encouraged Philemon to take Onesimus back as a friend and not as a slave, he still told Philemon that he could give orders to Onesimus, which is quite paradoxical.

When looking at the Onesimus situation, Paul believed that Onesimus had to return to Philemon not as a slave; rather, under a bond of respect and love. Moreover, Paul did not suggest that the slave had to be punished, although the Roman law allowed slave owners to be extremely brutal, going as far as execution. For this reason, Paul wrote to Philemon and asked him to accept Onesimus back for the sake of reconciliation and forgiveness. By doing so, Paul attempted to diminish the social barriers that divided people in the society of that time. For Paul, the movement to freedom was associated with the shift to standing under the lordship of Jesus Christ, which, in this case, would mean that Christ had a claim to the obedience of Onesimus, as opposed to Philemon.¹⁵

Overall, the issue of slavery in the context of Pauls Letter to Philemon remained unresolved and understudied given the circumstances during which the text had appeared. Verses presented too little information about the wrongdoing of Onesimus as well as whether he owed money to his owner. Nevertheless, the tone in which Paul appealed to Philemon showed that the composer of the letter played a role of an advocate and a diplomat who wanted to be neither for nor against slavery, which reflects the structure and the ways in which the Roman society of that time operated.

To the modern reader, the position of Paul can seem contradictory and unclear: if he intended to free Onesimus, a brother, why nothing was said against slavery, and why was Paul so polite? Based on the social-scientific interpretation of the text, the structures and the institutions of the Roman society of that time did not require an abolition of slavery, and the modern perspectives on this matter are completely different from those existing in Ancient Rome.

Detailed Analysis of the Text, and Its Interpretation Using the Social-Scientific Approach

Pauls Letter to Philemon dealt with three requests (favors) the texts composer was trying to ask the recipient. The first request was associated with asking Philemon to accept his slave back: If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me.¹⁶ Martin Luther successfully pointed this request out and stated that Paul acted as he was Onesimus himself who had wronged his master.

It may be assumed that what Christ did for the sake of humanity was similar to Pauls actions towards Onesimus and Philemon. The second request was also linked to an if-then statement. He asked Philemon to charge him for the wrongdoing of Onesimus, thus acting as a guarantor for the relationship between Philemon and his slave. The third request to Philemon was to refresh my heart in Christ,¹⁷ which was a plea for forgiveness and renewal of relationships.

From a social-scientific perspective, Pauls approach can be regarded as somewhat political or diplomatic because he acted in the interests of one person while building relationships with another individual.

Despite the fact that modern diplomacy is not grounded on the ideas of religion and faith in Jesus Christ or any other deity, Pauls Letter to Philemon is unique in its approach towards new opportunities of reconciliation between two parties that had a misunderstanding. Book of Philemon can also teach much about the way human relationships were handled in the Roman society of that time. The fact that one person played a role of an advocate for the interests of another without pursuing any personal gain is surprising, especially given that the modern society operates on the basis of personal interests, gains, and monetary values.

Importantly, Onesimus was indeed a fugitive from justice.¹⁸ It should also be stressed that Paul did not seek to minimize the sins of the runaway slave; rather, he asked Philemon for forgiveness on Onesimus behalf. Thus, the letter can be regarded as a diplomatic piece of writing composed by a brother, to another brother, on behalf of another brother¹⁹. In the context of the letter, Paul set aside his own rights and acted on behalf of another person. Verse nineteen is the most pivotal section of the letter; in the verse, Paul offered to pay whatever Onesimus owed to Philemon as if he was the one that accrued debts himself²⁰.

The Relationship Between the Social-Scientific Interpretation of the Text and Non-Denominational Christianity

When it comes to the alignment of the social-scientific approach towards text interpretation and the non-denominational faith tradition, it should be stressed that the non-denominational Christian faith does not stand closely to the traditions of confessionalism and creedalism. Therefore, it can fully accept the untraditional perspectives offered by the social-scientific interpretation of religious writings. Thus, it is possible to conclude that non-denominational Christianity and the social-scientific interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon are not contradictory, and may contribure to one another without a conflict.

Conclusions

While Pauls Letter to Philemon is concerned with one of the most controversial topics of history, slavery, the stance the author had can be considered diplomatic: Paul did not speak against slavery nor did he support it. The social-scientific approach towards the interpretation of the letter revealed that the modern perspective on slavery is completely different to the way the ancient Roman society regarded it.

Although the social-scientific interpretation of the Letter to Philemon does not align completely with the Christian tradition of biblical text analysis, it is applicable to the contemporary views on slavery. With regards to the application of the social-scientific approach to Philemons interpretation within the context of current issues, it is evident that the etic and the emic of the text do not align: while the Roman society of that time regarded slavery as normal, modern readers see this practice as unconstitutional and immoral.

In conclusion, it is imperative to mention that the social-scientific interpretation of Pauls letter to Philemon shed light on how the ancient Roman society viewed such social institutions as slavery as opposed to how the modern reader perceives them today. Pauls Letter to Philemon is a piece of literary work written by a true diplomat who neither supported nor disproved opinions held by the proponents of different views. While the contextual and historical analysis showed that the ancient and modern views on a certain social institution differed drastically, the formal analysis showed that the intention of the letter to Philemon was not to support either opinion, but rather to bridge the gap between two individuals who found themselves in a situation of a relationship crisis.

Bibliography

Bible Gateway. Pauls Request. Biblegateway.

. Philemon. Biblegateway.

Dabbs, Matt. Pauls Letter to Philemon  Historical Background. Mattdabbs(blog). 2009.

Elliot, John. Social-scientific Criticism: Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil Eye Accusation at Galatia as Illustration of the Method. Theological Studies 67, no. 1 (2011): 1-10.

Gaventa, Beverly, and David Petersen. The New Interpreters Bible. Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 2010.

Gorman, Michael. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Knoles, John. Philemon: Christian Diplomacy. Nativemarriage. 2017.

Redd, Scott. Literary Analysis of Pauls Letter to Philemon: An Analysis of Pauls Use of Poetic Devices to Appeal to Philemon Conscience. Thirdmill. 2017.

Ryan, Judith. Philippians and Philemon. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009.

Footnotes

1. John Elliot, Socal-scientific Criticism: Perspective, Process, and Payoff. Evil Eye Accusation at Galatia as Illustration of the Method. Theological Studies 67, no. 1 (2011): 2.
2. Elliot, Socal-scientific Criticism, 2.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 4.
5. Michael Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 67.
6. Elliot, Socal-scientific Criticism, 5.
7. Ibid., 5.
8. Ibid., 5.
9. Bible Gateway, Pauls Request, Biblegateway. Web.
10. Bible Gateway, Philemon, Biblegateway. Web.
11. Bible Gateway, Pauls Request.
12. Bible Gateway, Philemon.
13. Matt Dabbs, Pauls Letter to Philemon  Historical Background, Mattdabbs(blog). Web.
14. Beverly Gaventa and David Petersen, The New Interpreters Bible (Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 2010), 78.
15. Judith Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 47.
16. Scott Redd, Literary Analysis of Pauls Letter to Philemon: An Analysis of Pauls Use of Poetic Devices to Appeal to Philemon Conscience, Thirdmill. Web.
17. Redd, Literary Analysis of Pauls Letter.
18. John Knoles, Philemon: Christian Diplomacy, Nativemarriage. Web.
19. Knoles, Philemon: Christian Diplomacy.
20. Ibid.

Introduction

Saint Bonaventure was a member of the Franciscan order and a philosopher in the 13^th century. The philosophy of Bonaventure can be considered Augustinian because it was heavily influenced by Augustine (Sutanto, 2021). One of the most significant issues that Bonaventure advanced was the nature and status of the soul. The theologian indicated that the nature of the soul, being, and truth are the three ways that provide proof for the existence of God (Salvador-González, 2021). This paper will review the interpretation of Saint Bonaventure on the soul.

Nature and Status of the Soul

Saint Bonaventure notes that the soul represents the principle that maintains life in a body. The soul is assigned specific powers that are necessary features for its functions (Löwe, 2021). Another aspect is that the soul signifies Gods image and nature serves an important role in bringing the soul to God (Milne, 2021). This idea indicates that knowledge and wisdom about all things are possessed by human beings through the soul. Bonaventure advised people to live righteous lives to ensure that their souls returned to God (Milne, 2021). This occurs when a person looks inward and recognizes the presence of the soul, which is proof of the existence of God.

Saint Bonaventure pointed out that the soul possesses memory, will, and intelligence. Memory is used to create thought objects, which can refer to the future, the present, or the past (Salvador-González, 2021). The three aspects mirror the spiritual nature of God and foreshadow the Trinity. The philosopher was able to explain that the soul is the form of the body and the spiritual substance (Kemp, 2018). This means that it is composed of spiritual matter and form. The two aspects help to explain why the different characteristics of the soul. Memory, will, and intelligence can help individuals to reflect inwardly and learn more about the soul.

Another aspect that describes the nature of the soul is that it has three main parts, which are the spirit, the senses, and the mind. The senses are focused on the objects or exterior corporeal, the spirit is preoccupied with the self, while the mind with above the self (Salvador-González, 2021). These three aspects lead the soul toward Gods knowledge. Sense perception is the first stage of the process of knowing God. The human soul uses its spiritual and intellectual powers to guide a person toward the path of God.

Regarding the status of the soul, Bonaventure notes that it is immortal. The idea is based on the belief that the soul represents the image of God and possesses key powers, which relate to the divinity of God. Bonaventure indicated that the soul consists of both form and substance (Rickabaugh, 2018). This gives it human and divine characteristics and further underlines the idea that some aspects of the soul are immortal. Therefore, Saint Bonaventure was a crucial theologian and philosopher who helped advance knowledge of the soul.

Conclusion

In summary, Bonaventure views the soul as an image of God, which gives humans certain powers. Memory, will, and intelligence is essential aspects of the soul and is crucial in assisting people to get closer to God. The powers of the soul are considered necessary features and they depend on the soul. These powers should be considered in the same category as the soul.

References

Kemp, M. (2018). Most Evident to Us, Most Distant from God: The Body as Locus of Salvation in Bonaventures Breviloquium. Essays in Medieval Studies, 34(1), 53-64.

Löwe, C. L. (2021). Bonaventure on the Soul and Its Powers. Vivarium, 59(1-2), 10-32. Web.

Milne, J. (2021). Saint Bonaventure and the Divine Order of Creation. Medieval Mystical Theology, 30(1), 17-36. Web.

Rickabaugh, B. L. (2018). Responding to NT Wrights Rejection of the Soul. The Heythrop Journal, 59(2), 201-220. Web.

Salvador-González, J. M. (2021). Contemplating God from the Mirror of the Soul: The First Level of St. Bonaventures Introspective Aesthetics from Its Inspiring Sources. Poligrafi, 26(103/104), 153-173. Web.

Sutanto, N. G. (2021). Questioning Bonaventures Augustinianism? On the Noetic Effects of Sin. New blackfriars, 102(1099), 401-417. Web.

Psalms is a sacred book of the Old Testament. The book of Psalms consists of 150 psalms devoted to different religious values and norms. Each psalm is a song consisted of chants. Critics suppose that the Book of Psalms was composed by the Babylonians, from about 586 to 538 B.C. The authorship in the Book of Psalms is not agreed upon yet, but critics state that David is one of the possible authors of this book. The religion of the psalms is a communion, a sharing between the human and the divine. And the thing that lifts this communion, great as it is in itself, to something yet nobler and more potent is that it is communion with God in fellowship with other men. For always behind the experience of the psalmist, buoying it up, is the social fellowship of the congregation (Bouhoeffer, 1974). What the author of the spiritual song derived from the public congregation is inestimably great. The fellowship of public worship is the spiritual mother of individual religious utterance. Moreover, Sigmund Mowinckels brilliant and extraordinarily suggestive studies in the psalms have made it appear most likely that practically every psalm in the Psalter was intended for rendition in the regular and officially constituted worship of the Temple and is right.

Understanding of the psalms is the recognition that their origin is to be found in the organized public worship, the cult. We move imperceptibly in Israel from the life situation which created secular songs to the cultic or worship situation which created Temple psalms. To ask the question as to its life or worship setting is to answer it (Bouhoeffer, 1974). In many a psalm, this is not so plain because it is not all of one type. Different literary types and worship settings are combined in it to form a richer but more complex whole. When this is the case, the psalm dates from a period when the different literary types had begun to meet, mingle, and influence each other. This period set in at approximately 500 B.C. When that life setting in worship that gives the psalm its most distinctive character has been discovered for every psalm of the Psalter, we can readily arrange the psalms in major groups. We have then learned where to take hold of a psalm because we know its most distinctive mark. The result of interpreting the psalms in accordance with their setting in Hebrew worship is threefold. In the first place, one is surprised by the rich diversity in the Psalter. The prayer of dedication to the work of God in its worldwide extent closes this varied worship ritual (Bouhoeffer, 1974).

A hymn that inspires in the congregation the mood of quiet receptivity is followed by that climactic moment when the minister, now as a prophet, brings the living word of thus saith the Lord to his people. This corresponds to the prophetic oracle in the psalms. The final hymn with its note of spiritual commitment follows, and toward its close comes the recessional of choir and ministershow greatly beloved were such ceremonies in Israel-bringing the ministers to the rear of the sanctuary. a psalm first as the soul utterance of the unknown psalmist who created it, and then as a vehicle of the soul utterance, whether congregational or individual, of others. There was a time when that which a particular psalm tells us was an unwritten, unreported, living experience. In early Israel when the psalms were in the making, many a gifted individual sang forth in the Temple what God had done for his soul. The experience itself preceded its telling. The telling often preceded its literary formulation. The written psalm followed the living Temple witness. There must have been many instances in Israel when a religious-minded priest encouraged a gifted worshiper to put his own vital experience in literary form. Thus his blessing at Gods hands might be used to encourage other worshipers yet to come. And it is reasonable to believe, with Mowinckel, that many a psalm owes its origin to the Temple singers who knew music, who knew the needs of worshipers, and who knew God (Lewis, 2000).

Psalm 149 is a new song, and it belongs in the circle of ideas and rites associated with the enthronement of the Lord. A central idea in the psalm is Gods judgment upon the enemy powers. That judgment has already been decreed. But now with the enthronement of God as King consummated anew, the Israelites are inspired to the faith that this decreed sentence may through them be carried into effect. The occasion is significant and unites the spiritual and the military aspects of the congregation of the Lord in a unique synthesis. This summons to praise is based on the experience of Israel that God accepts His people and is Himself the source of the victory that comes to their arms (Longman, 1988). For instance, Psalm 150 is a general congregational hymn. It is a veritable paean of praise, most appropriate for the closing psalm of the Psalter, and no doubt created or chosen with that in mind by the final editor of the Psalms. Such a hymn was sung on many occasions but was particularly appropriate for great hours of the festal year when the Temple courts would be thronged with worshipers and the worship would be the richest and most inspiring (Longman, 1988).

Psalm 1 is described as a wisdom psalm that combines the two characteristic interests of postexilic Judaism, the trend toward legalism and the teaching concerning retribution. This latter problem, as Paulsen has said, is the first great fundamental truth to which reflection on moral things has led all nations.The psalm has a strong pedagogical interest that comes to focus in the congregation of the Lord. And the trend in the psalm toward the law and its study points to a time of origin after around 397 B.C. when the priestly law was introduced to the restored community in Jerusalem and Judah (Longman, 1988). Such a psalm would be appropriate in the congregation whenever the pedagogical interest which centered in the law was being stressed, and this, at least in later Judaism, would be at the Festival of Weeks (Harvest or Pentecost), which celebrated the giving of the law at Sinai (Longman, 1988). Psalm 2 is a kings psalm, spoken in part by a Judean monarch himself at the moment when he is anointed, king. We are to think of some scenes such as is given in the report of the anointing of the young prince Jehoash. The king appears before his people in the inner court of the Temple and stands beside one of the two great pillars of the Temple porch at the entrance to the Temple, as was the custom (Psalms n.d.). Psalm 16 is a song of trust from a devout and deeply spiritual soul. The psalmist is in danger of death, a situation which causes him great concern, and he seeks earnestly and indeed trustfully the protection of God (. It would seem that he is among Arabs who are putting pressure upon him to participate in their pagan rites, to call upon their gods by name, and to pour out to them libations of blood. Psalm 23, is a psalm of individual thanksgiving rendered in connection with the presentation at the Temple of a thank-offering In verses 4-5 are mentioned the concrete experiences which gave rise to the psalm (Longman, 1988).

In sum, the Book of Psalms reflects universal values and moral principles of religion, attitude towards life, and other people. God is a Being, not of whom, but unto whom the psalmist speaks. The words of the Psalter are alive with the awareness of an Other. The life setting of such a psalm is the part of the ceremony of his enthronement in which the king is anointed and clothed with the insignia of his office.

Bibliography

Book of Psalms. N.d. Web.

Bouhoeffer, D. 1974, Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible. Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

Lewis, C.S. 2000, Reflections on the Psalms. Harvest Books.

Longman, T. 1988, How to Read the Psalms (How to Read Series). nterVarsity Press.

Introduction

The Bible described many situations when people got to know Gods words from other people among them. Being chosen individually, prophets were expected to pass Gods message to others. These messages were aimed to communicate Gods will, while the predictions in them happened to be inevitable.

Background and Interpretation

In the Bible, prophets are acknowledged to be mediators of Gods message to people. They are not somebody with supernatural abilities, but ordinary people who God chose to transmit his message. They were of different social origins since God chose prophets by their spiritual qualities. The word prophet was first applied to Abraham. However, it is not mentioned that he could foretell the future. Like other characters from the Bible who were proclaimed prophets, patriarchs were considered as people through who God transmitted his messages as well as words of edification, denunciation, and consolation. These prophets are patriarchs of Pentateuch, such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Yaakov as well as Moses and his brother Aaron (Boyle 2015, 146-147).

At the times of the prophets service, Hebrew people were in moral decay. Thus, the disregard of Mosaic Law was common, and pagan beliefs and mode of life were easily acquired. Therefore, the main aim for the prophets was to return the Hebrew to God who had led them out from Egypt to His Law. The prophets strictly denounced sinners regardless of their position in the society, be it ordinary people, priests, or rules. Denunciation and warnings were also addressed to neighboring folks. Besides, prophets denouncing and warning statements are closely connected with Israel and surrounding states (Sanneh 2015, 14).

The Bible describes several ways of passing the prophecy on to a prophet and then to people. The first one is transmitting a message in the course of direct communication with God in a visible appearance, which is called Theophany. The second one is Bath Kol, which is a vocal message from God. Some other ways are visions, dreams, messages sent with an angel, special inspiration by the Holy Spirit on a persons senses. The prophet, in his turn, transmitted the message to others orally or in writing. In some situations, the messages were transmitted through prophets symbolic deeds, which are so-called visual prophecy. For example, Ezekiel organized a symbolic siege of the city, whereas Jeremiah broke a jug. Receipt and transmission of a prophetic message in the Bible are not connected with any ecstatic state of a prophet. Prophets received the message while being conscious. This fact distinguishes biblical prophets from pagan and occult foretellers who entered a special ecstatic state and did not understand what they were saying during this trance (Sanneh 2015, 17).

The Bible considers prophecy as a special revelation from God to a person. In the beginning, the Bible describes a direct communication between God and the first people. Then the Fall is described together with its consequences. Adam and Eve had to hide from God when they heard His voice in Eden after their Fall. The feelings of fear and shame became a serious obstacle to the communication of God with people. After that, God appeared only to a few people who were supposed to become messengers for others. When in some cases God especially exhibited his presence, some people experienced tremors and tried to avoid this communication. For instance, when God proclaimed Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai with His voice, people were scared and addressed to Moses to be a mediator in their communication with God (Boyle 2015, 158-159).

Moses never claimed to be the only mediator between God and people. When Moses was told that there were other prophets in Israel, he was asked to prohibit it. However, Moses replied: Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lords people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them (Boyle 2015, 159). Apostle Paul evaluates the gift of prophecy in the same way: Follow after love, yet desire earnestly spiritual (gifts), but rather than ye may prophesy (Boyle 2015, 159).

The Bible describes several cases when people attempted to avoid the prophecy. King Saul, who had prophesied, did not fulfill Gods direct command wittingly. Due to this, he was rejected as King of Israel. Saul realized it but objected to Gods will. Therefore, he chased David who Prophet Samuel anointed King of Israel instead of Saul. After getting no reply from God Saul broke Gods will one more time by addressing a sorceress, which was prohibited by Moses Law. Finally, Saul died in a battle disgracefully, whereas David became King. Although Rebecca was told that the older will be the servant of the younger, her husband Isaac ignored the prophecy and tried to give his blessing to Esau but not to Yaakov, as was predicted. However, the blessing was received by Yaakov, against Isaacs will. Israelites tried to conquer Canaan, but in vain, after God had announced that they would not see the Promised Land because they had believed to the majority of eavesdroppers sent to Canaan. When Ahab ignored the prophecy from Micah that he would die in a battle, he did not manage to avoid it and died of an accidentally shot arrow (Boyle 2015, 164-166).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that God chose prophets individually regardless of their origin because these were spiritual qualities that were of importance. Prophets were supposed to transmit the message which aimed to communicate Gods will. The predictions in the message were inevitable.

List of References

Boyle, Brian. Friendly Guide to the Prophets. Mulgrave, Vic.: Garratt Publishing, 2015.

Sanneh, Lamin. Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015.

Interpreting religious texts always represents a substantial degree of complexity due to the multiple approaches to understanding the meaning of a specific message or a certain term. The Talmud is no exception to the observed rule, with its Mishnah and Gemara, or the written text and the perception of its meaning, demanding a significant struggle to be correlated to each other. Though scholars express different opinions regarding the interpretation of the hand as the public ground in Gemara, the existing Mishnah leads to believe that the hand must be recognized as such when presented intentionally.

Specifically, the idea of extending ones hand in an attempt at6 offering or sharing something is presumed to be unclaimed ground. While Mishnah seems to be quite clear on the concept of the hand as the unclaimed territory at first, the further integration of Gemara into the interpretation of the text leads to further complications (Mazuz, 2018). Namely, suggesting that the notion of intent must be incorporated into the definition to characterize the hand as the unclaimed area, Mishnah introduces certain confusion into the understanding of the text. Asa result, the attempt at drawing the hand back may become a prohibited action from the standpoint of the Talmud depending on the interpretation used as the template. Therefore, the perception of the hand as the unclaimed ground appears to be the most sensible avenue to take when examining the key statements of the Talmud.

In other words, the question of whether a man whose hand is filled with fruit can draw it back to the ground on which the man stands can be answered with a resounding confirmation. Moreover, in the s specified context, the concept of holding fruit in ones hand could also be interpreted as the symbol of plentifulness and, therefore, the symbol of regal origin (Mazuz, 2018). Moreover, the concept of plentifulness linked to the image of a hand in the passage under analysis can be correlated to the idea of not only interpreting the Talmud in a biased way but also introducing the tones perspective into the sacred narrative, therefore, altering it and preventing others from its proper understanding. Specifically, Mazuz (2018) refers to the following passage as the confirmation of the described relationships between the notion of the hand and the phenomena of Mishnah and Gemara: So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, This is from All
h (Mazuz, 2018, p. 205). Therefore, the notion of the hand becomes metaphorical, losing its straightforwardness that the concept of plentifulness implied in the first iteration of the message, and opens the door to new interpretations. Furthermore, the described change in the interpretation of the sacred text allows for shifting from interpersonal relationships to individual dialogue with the Lord and the believer. By dissecting the implicit relationships between the Mishnah and Gemara, one will be able to locate underlying meanings of the text of the Talmud, therefore, learning about the cultural premises thereof.

Despite the presence of different opinions concerning the interpretation of the hand in the Talmud, viewing the Mishnah in its traditional manner suggests that the intention defines the perception of the hand as such in the Talmud writing. Therefore, introducing multiple perspectives into the analysis of the reading is vital. Thus, opportunities for discovering new meanings of the traditional passages open.

Reference

Mazuz, H. (2018). From Moses Mishnahto Moses Maimonides Mishneh TMrah: The Development of the Jewish Oral Law According to al-Maqr+z+. Journal Asiatique, 306(2), 201-207.h

In my biblical interpretation paper, I decided to analyze the story that tells about an ambitious mother and her request to Jesus (Matthew 20:20-23). In this story, the mother of Zebedees sons is begging to assign her children to the leading positions in Jesuss kingdom at his left and right hands. Jesuss attitude toward this proposal is skeptical as he mentions their ignorance about these positions. So, he asks about brothers alacrity and capability to drink from the same cup. They state about their readiness and ability to carry the given burden. Jesus, on the other hand, states that even they will drink from his cup, he could not guarantee them to sit at his right and left hands, as it is assigned only for those who have been prepared by his Father.

Looking back to the history of this passage, we could clarify some evidence related to the story. According to Mark 15:40, the mother of the sons of Zebedee name was Salome, and names of her sons were John and James. Her husband and the father of her sons Zebedee has left in Galilee (Mark 1:20). Salome followed the group of holy women who accomplished Jesus during his journeys. As mentioned by Bible Hub (Matthew 20:20, n.d), Salome was one of those who believed that the kingdom of God under Jesuss leadership should appear. Her ideas of the formation of the kingdom of God are explained by the possible union of twelve tribes of Israel mentioned in Matthew 19:28. The Messianic kingdom promised to have twelve thrones, accordingly twelve rulers, so, Salome wanted to honor her sons.

Matthew 20:20 states about the ambitious desire of a mother to obtain power for her sons. From the lines and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him, the following things could be acknowledged: she worshipping him that means she recognizes Jesus as the king; she strongly believes that the kingdom of Heaven would be ruled by Jesus (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:20, n.d). Following that, in Matthew 20:21, when she asks Jesus to locate her sons one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom, she demands the guarantee of the privileged positions for her sons (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:21, n.d). Moreover, the left and right hands implies to next supreme positions in dignity and consideration (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:21,n.d). This is also a direct link for twelve thrones that would be occupied by Jesuss vassals.

The next verses mentioned by Matthew 20:22 claim that Jesus indicated the hardships and sufferings related to the leading positions. In the verses Ye know not what ye ask, he highlights infinite affection and sadness related to their request (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:22, n.d). Moreover, it is crucial to note that in his answer he addresses John and James, but not their mother. By this Jesus mentions brothers unawareness about the consequences and sufferings related to their decisions. To drink of the cup that I shall drink of& refers to the possibility to be punished or afflicted (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:22, n.d). Additionally, this could imply sharing poisons, patients, and subsequent resurrections related to his role. Next, Jesuss response supported by the claim that the place to them for whom it is prepared of my Father (Matthew 20:23), indicates uncertainty about brothers fates. The highest stage should be reserved by people with love and glory to God that is equal to his. Despite the doubts expressed by the verses, James first of the twelve who passed through the baptism of blood (Acts 12:2), while John struggled with the great storm of persecution (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:23, n.d).

The overall interpretation of the passage could declare Jesuss affection toward his fate. From the passage, we could observe that the followers of Jesus drink the same bitter cup of suffering and rejection (Matthew 20:20-23 | Sacred Space, n.d.). Furthermore, it presents the fact that exactly following Jesuss path could not help to fully understand his ideas and visions. To recognize his feeling, it is needed to have the same love gaze to God.

For the original audience, these messages have far-reaching and profound significance. Essentially, it specifies the uniqueness of Jesus and the power of his faith in God. In addition, the passage insists that the highest level of power brings not only advantages but also sufferings. Lastly, it suggests, even being assigned by Jesus, leaders could be not accepted by God. The image of the ambitious mother could be interpreted as the instance that wants to authorize rulers according to personal preferences regardless of their abilities. Although notable differences between the original and modern audience are present, we could see a similar perception of the passage regarding present-day society.

The passage contains different theological principles important in understanding the context of the Bible. Firstly, it seeks the kingdom of God in its narrative. The idea of a sacred place, where the blind can see, the deaf can hear, and all illnesses are healed (Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, n.d.) is mentioned by John and Jamess mother. Another theological principle expressed in the passage is life-long faith development. The formation of the faith and love to God in Christianity is recognized as the right and duty of all (Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, n.d). Based on this principle, faith should continuously deepen regardless the age and sex.

In Matthew 20:20-23, we observe a similar case as John and James should have achieved the same level of faith and obedience as Jesus did. The next theological principle stated in the passage is that regardless of the power, a human is a servant of God. Here, we observe the principle of servant leadership mentioned by Matthew 20:25-28 that states first among you must be your slave. The main idea behind that the great power gives them great responsibilities. So, in the passage, Jesus states that after obtaining the authority they must share the suffering and misery of the power.

Considering the passage in the entire context of the Bible, several facts are noticed. Firstly, Salome was not a wife of Zebedee but the mother of his sons (Bible Hub, Matthew 20:20, n.d). It is not clear, if Zebedee did follow Christ, however, John and James did. The principle of Jesuss superiority and uniqueness fit the overall framework of the Bible. Also, other theological principles including the life-long development of the faith, servant leadership, and the kingdom of Heaven support other parts of the Bible. Talking about the modern implementation of the above-mentioned principles, some of them could be recognized besides religion. For example, the principle of servant leadership could be modified according to secular standards. So, leaders and rulers of the countries should priorly represent the interests of the people.

References

American Bible Society. (2000). The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.

Bible Hub. (n.d.). Matthew 20:20 Commentaries: Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him.

Bible Hub. (n.d.). Matthew 20:21 Commentaries: And He said to her, What do you wish? She said to Him, Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.. 

Bible Hub. (n.d.). Matthew 20:22 Commentaries: But Jesus answered, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink? They said to Him, We are able.

Bible Hub. (n.d.). Matthew 20:23 Commentaries: He said to them, My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.. Matthew 20:23 Commentaries.

Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle. (n.d.). Theological Principles. Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

Sacred Space. Matthew 20:20-23 | Sacred Space. (n.d.).

David Mura is a third-generation Japanese-American writer. An argument is a poem written by him depicting the traumatic experience of the Japanese living in America during the days of the Second World War. The situation then was something similar to the one the Muslim population in America (though not so severe)undergoes today, after the attack on Iraq. The Japanese were collected in one place and barbed wire was placed around them, with guards with weapons watching them. Muras mother wanted to avoid recollecting the shocking memory of her days as a child. It is the curiosity of the son which compelled her to reveal the hardships she experienced. A summary of the poem is the focus of this paper.

The first stanza of the twenty-one-line poem is given in italics to show that it is a report of an event in 1942 given by someone and not by his mother. It also indicates that the son had to rely on such reports from outside sources to understand the gravity of the situation experienced by the Japanese in America during the days of the war. It was not discussed in the family. The Buddha temple indicates the concentration of Japanese and the stores show the place where they used to work. The second stanza beginning in the style of a dramatic monologue explains his mothers objection to the reference to the war days: No, no, no, she tells me. Why to bring it back? (Mura). The lack of communication between the parent-child and the sons curiosity to fathom the ethnic betrayal are explicit in these words. The use of words like shoyu- stained furoshiki, mochi gives a Japanese color to the poem, apart from the music it provides. They also reveal the routine life they had. The mother is trying to tone down the seriousness and gravity of their suffering by stating that Mostly we were bored. Women cooked and sewed, /men played blackjack, dug gardens, a banjo. / Who noticed barbed wire, guards in the towers? (Mura). The poets grandmother used to do whatever she could to take care of her children. The mother reminds her son that it was But cancer, not the camps made her throat blacker. She thus tries to play down the seriousness and console him. The grandmother had died before he was born: but why cant you glean/ how far weve come, how much I cant recall, tells the mother. The last line of the poem is left alone as it gives stress on a reality: David, it was so long agohow useless it seems (Mura).

An Argument is a political poem. It reveals the political crime inflicted on an ethnic minority. More than that, it highlights its traumatic effects on future generations. Such scars remain in the psyche of the posterity. Innocent people are always suspected of espionage. This is the fate of the Asians living in America, though they are not subjected to slavery-like what the black people experience. Altogether, David Muras poem is beautiful.

Reference

Mura, David. An Argument: 1942. American Literature, Volume II (Penguin Academics Series) 1 Book Paperback (limp)

Introduction

Young Goodman Brown is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne depicting the eternal battle between good and evil. It is a tale of a young man walking through a gloomy forest with an elderly companion to perform a wicked deed. Throughout the journey, the main character, Goodman Brown, doubts his decision to follow his friend, while the old person tries to persuade him by acknowledging acquaintance with many powerful men, including the local pastors, deacons, and the governor.

In the course of actions, the reader realizes that the two men are heading to a Devil worshipers meeting to accept the young man as their new member. In the Goodman Brown gathers strength to resist the sin and wakes up in the middle of the forest as if everything was a dream. In short, the main idea of the story is that all men can stand against evil with the help of their family and faith in God.

Symbolic Characters

Hawthorne conveys his idea to the reader through symbolic characters that are not difficult to interpret, as the main characters have names that speak for themselves. First, the young Goodman Brown is a symbol of all the good men in the world that are trying to resist the temptation of evil. He is a naive person who learns the evil history of his family and all the people he trusted (Hawthorne para. 18). Even though the main character is maddened by all the dreadful knowledge he acquires, he finds an inspiration to fight against the Devil and stay unbroken.

Second, youthful Faith Brown, Goodmans wife, is a symbol of both belief and family. She is described as a young woman with a pretty head and pink ribbons in her cap (Hawthorne para. 1). She is a pure, innocent, and sometimes silly woman who makes her husband want to protect her from the dark side of his life. In short, Faith is Goodman Browns only incentive to stay righteous and godly.

Third, the companion is a symbol of Satan who persuades all the pure and virtuous people into worshiping the sin. The character is described as an ordinary-dressed man with an indescribable air of one who knew the world, and would not have felt abashed at the governors dinner-table, or in King Williams court (Hawthorne para. 13). The most revealing part about the character is his staff that reminds a seducing snake of the heavenly garden. He is acquainted with all the important men to Brown and describes them all as sinners. In brief, the traveler accompanying young Goodman is a clear picture of the Devil confusing and deceiving all the people through showing that everyone is a sinner.

Interpreting the Symbols

The interpretation of symbols leads us to understand that the only to stand against sin is with the help of faith and family. Before joining the dark meeting, Goodman Brown shouts My Faith is gone! (Hawthorne para. 48). By these words, he acknowledges that both his wife and his belief in God left him. The main protagonist of the short story is ready to abandon his idea of fiend worshiping before realizing that his wife, who is a symbol of both faith and family, has joined Satan. At the same time, virtuous people can resist the temptation of sin by only looking in the face of their family members and his principles.

Conclusion

While the interpretation of symbols leads to the realization that family members and faith in God are the crucial incentives to fight against Devil, there are other motives present in the story. A careful reader might realize that there is evidence that Goodman Brown has joined the fiend worshippers, as his dying hour was gloom (Hawthorne para. 72). There is a possibility that the man has become broken by the incident. In conclusion, the story is not univocal and can find different interpretations depending on the character and experience of the reader.

Work Cited

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. Young Goodman Brown. Web.

Responsibility is a complex and ambiguous concept the interpretation of which has been the object of numerous debates throughout the centuries. Even though philosophers and analysts have made a lot of effort to work out a framework that would define this notion, every person still has an individual approach to understanding responsibility.

The most general interpretation of the term is provided by Barbara Darling-Smith, a professor of religion at Wheaton College, who has made a significant contribution to the examination of this problem. According to the professor, responsibility is a duty, task, or undertaking for which we are accountable or answerable (Darling-Smith 182). I shall admit that the relevant definition coincides completely with my vision of responsibility.

In the meantime, I shall necessarily note that I believe it critical to differentiate between the internal and the external types of responsibilities. Whereas the latter is normally imposed by the social obligations and the common norms, the former is defined individually, basing on personal ethical, and moral principles. Therefore, I assume that the way one indicates the scope of internal responsibilities can provide a vivid characteristic of his or her personality.

Professor Darling-Smith provides a more diverse classification of responsibilitys types. Hence, according to her, one should, likewise, point out corporate, ecological, and other responsibilities (Darling-Smith 152). However, I suppose that all these minor types can be referred to as one of the larger groups: internal or external responsibilities.

Trying to define the spectrum of my responsibilities, I shall begin with my immediate environment. Thus, I essentially feel responsible for my family and friends. Globally speaking, I have a sense of responsibility for all the people that I contact, to a larger or greater extent. Bearing this responsibility resides in adjusting my behavior following the needs and the interests of the people I am down to; therefore, in this case, I would rather speak about the internal responsibility that I voluntarily accept. As to my formal or external responsibilities, they are independently defined by the social environment within which I live. Hence, I have a series of undertakings as a student, as a driver, and so on.

Defining the scope of my responsibilities beyond my immediate circle is a much more challenging task. If being asked whether I consider myself to be in charge of nature and the planet, in general, I would naturally give an affirmative response. However, a thorough reflection on this subject would make me admit that my sense of responsibility for these issues does not have any physical outcomes. In other words, my responsibility for the things that do not belong to the immediate environment is, unfortunately, limited to the ideas  I perform little activity to fulfill my duties in this sphere. In the meantime, I realize that I shall work on this drawback and try to transform my sense of responsibility into particular actions.

In conclusion, I shall point out two aspects that I believe to be critical while speculating on responsibility. First of all, the scope of duties that a person defines internally provides an explicit characteristic of his or her morality. Secondly, a sense of responsibility should necessarily have some practical results. In other words, the principal aim of a responsible person is not only to state that he or he is in charge of something but to find ways to fulfill this duty.

Works Cited

Darling-Smith, Barbara. Responsibility, Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2007. Print.