Genesis 22

Here is my analysis of Genesis 22. I got a "good" for my effort with this. I don't think my professor agrees with some of the Christological typology, but I'm sticking to my guns.

Epistle and Type

We finished our discussion of genres last night. It was interesting to talk about epistle, though I didn't feel like it answered any of my questions satisfactorily. How do we know when the writer was writing a timeless truth? As with everything, context is key. Take this passage for example:

Titus 3:12-15 ESV
(12) When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there.
(13) Do your best to speed Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way; see that they lack nothing.
(14) And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful.
(15) All who are with me send greetings to you. Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you all.

So does this mean that, like Paul, we should winter at Nicopolis? Probably not. The typical example of this idea is:

2 Timothy 4:13 ESV
(13) When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

Clearly Paul is writing personally to Timothy. I don't think that is a timeless truth for us today.

However, that does make us wonder about that Titus passage. When do we take it for ourselves and when can we ignore it? Verses 14 and 15 seem to have the potential to be timeless truths. Verses 12 and 13 seem to be very much just for the current situation he was in.

How do we separate those? I think that if we go from the assumption that everything is a timeless truth unless it is unreasonable then we will be OK. This saves us from doing things like "contextualizing" 1Tim 2:8-15 when we don't like what it teaches. This is the same rule of thumb we use for figurative language as well. We should take the plain meaning of a passage unless there is a good reason to think otherwise.

"Type" isn't really a genre per se, but it was important to discuss. Basically, our professor believes that we should be careful in how we see Jesus all over the OT. There really are not that many types of Christ as some would say. That includes the leadership of my ministry. Personally, I'm not sure which way to lean.

In the end, the course has been very beneficial. It has given me a good framework to wrestle with as well as a consistent way to look at the text. I think that is what it is all about.

Apocalyptic and Parables

We are almost done with our hermeneutics class. In fact, we won't have to meet on Friday night, which is a huge blessing. Last night we discussed what to do with apocalyptic and parables. We also finished up our general principles discussion.

The general principles discussion fascinated me. Apparently there are a variety of hermeneutical systems out there. Many are easily dismissed like redaction criticism and liberalism. However, the allegorical one is tough to dismiss outright. There are many church fathers who looked for the meaning behind the meaning in the text. That doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is compelling. It seems clear that Jesus had some allegory in mind when He mentioned the "sign of Jonah" in Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16:4, and Luke 11:29-30. Paul also does this in Galatians 4:24.

One of the main arguments against the allegorical hermeneutic is the same as against charismaticism. Namely, there is a fear of the subjective. I think this is one of the places where the rubber really meets the road. It is wise to fear the unverifiable. However, does this create too narrow a view of God's Word?

I haven't really come to any conclusions on that. I'd appreciate any feedback that anyone can give.

Wisdom and Prophecy

We talked about these genres last night. My professor couldn't believe he was saying it, but he made the point that we need to do some personal interpretations of Proverbs. It is OK to ask, "what does this mean for me?" when looking at the pithy sayings of Proverbs from chapter 10 on. There is very little context for them and they really do stand alone. This is one of the personal problems I've had with reading through this book. There is so much to chew on that I tend not to absorb much.

We also talked about prophecy, which is a very difficult interpretive subject. The main thing I got from that discussion is that we don't necessarily need to worry about every detail. For example, we don't have to identify every eye and horn in the book of Daniel.

Again, God gave us a text to reveal Himself to us. Let's not read it through the lens of the newspaper or through the Left Behind books.

Tough Guys

Noah was sitting on the floor tonight and did something different. He wanted something in front of him and somehow managed to fall flat on his face. He normally rolls over and hits the back of his head. He seemed pretty nonplussed by the whole thing, to which Amanda and I made a declaration of his toughness.

It got me thinking about what tough-guy movies I'd like for him to see and why. Off the top of my head:

• Rocky (obvious)
• Rocky II (got to love your wife)
• Rocky III (you can't get soft)
• Rocky IV (general toughness in Siberia)
• Raiders of the Lost Ark (fighting the big German, truck scene)
• Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (tough guys can repent)
• Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (good father-son movie)
• Cool Hand Luke (preparation for the work world)
• Dirty Dozen (team building)

Any other thoughts?