The Significance of ‘Integuments’ in John 10:10 and Genesis 3:21

Edward Sitepu; Milisi Sembiring; Yonas Muanley; Abraham Barlian Sigalingging

doi:10.37364/jireh.v5i2.139

Edward Sitepu Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Baptist Bandung
Milisi Sembiring Universitas Methodist Indonesia
Yonas Muanley STT IKSM Santosa Asih
Abraham Barlian Sigalingging Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Baptist Bandung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37364/jireh.v5i2.139

Keywords: emergency action, integument, real life, three domains of enemy

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the promise that will be fulfilled in Jesus based on Genesis 3 verse 15. descriptive qualitative research to solve the problems of the study. The method used is to provide a textual explanation of God’s temporary, emergency and imperfect actions in a theological-style material. The OT text regarding God's actions contained in Gen. 3:21 is of an emergency nature. Meanwhile, if the NT text in John 10:10 is divided into 10 a and 10 b, it indicates Jesus' mission for humans who have sinned and must face the rulers of this world. Two facts, where the emergency action of God YHWH and the complete fulfillment of Jesus' task as a form of fulfillment of God's promise to the first humans require a precise explanation and how this emergency action is related to its fulfillment. In this problem, the approach uses a comparative approach to these two facts to then confirm the key words (underlying text) in Gen. 3:21 and John 10:10 a and 10 b. The results show that the fulfillment of Jesus' task was the fulfillment and at the same time permanently overcoming this emergency action.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andreas J. Kostenberger, “Jesus the Good Shepherd Who Will Also Bring Other Sheep (John 10:16): The Old Testament Background of a Familiar Metaphor,” BBR 12 (2002).

Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret, Intention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. https://www. jstor .org /stable/2382031/

Boomershine, T.E. 1980, “The Structure of Narrative Rhetoric in Gen 2-3.” Semeia 18 (1980).

Buchanan G.W. (1956), “The Old testament Meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956).

B. W. Bacon, “Pauline Elements in the Fourth Gospel: Parables of the Shepherd, John X.l-39,” ATR 11 (1929).

Carolyn Byrne, Matthew Hardman, Integumentary Structures in Mouse Development, Mouse-Development Patterning, Morphogenesis, and Organogenesis. San Diego, Academic Press, 2002.

C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978);

Clarck, W.M (1969), “A Legal Background to the Yahwist’s use of Good and Evil in Gen 2-3. Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969), 266-278.

Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

Dougherty, J.J. (1941), “The Fall and its Consequences. An Exegetical Study of Gen 3,1-24.”

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 3 (1941).

Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (chief editor), “Intention” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diakses 12 September 2022.

Johannes Butler and Robert T. Fortuna, eds., The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context (SNTSMS 67; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

John Quasten, “The Parable of the Good Shepherd: Jn. 10:1-21,” CBQ 10 (1948).

Kelly L. Diegel, .Zbigniew W. Wojcinski, Systems Toxicologic Pathology, in Haschek and Rousseaux's Handbook of Toxicology Pathology (Third Edition), 2013.

Letterio Gato, The theology of the Sphere is prescribed by its topology 13 Ottobre 2017 in Fondazione David Hume, Accessed 12 September 2022.

Merriam-Webster, in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Collins dictionary.

Strong's Number H5785 matches the Hebrew עוֹר (ʿôr), which occurs 99 times in 82 verses

Michael Horton. The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology of Pilgrims On The Way (Michigan: Zondervan, 2010, 77.

Velleman, David., Practical Reflection. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.