Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian
That's a good example. And while I think it's acceptable (in a homiletic sense) to point to an analogy to establish a biblical truth independent of that analogy, I think we should be careful. Particularly with types and shadows, which have a completely different hermeneutic grid for usage.
The thing is, when we lean heavily on this sort of usage of scripture, we make the Bible appears as some mystic code with hidden meanings and magical powers. While there is definitely a mystical element to poring over its pages, the Bible has a message that meant something to its authors and its original audiences. We need to discover that and learn what it means to us. This is why I lean more toward Exegetical teaching.
|
VERY VERY GOOD WORDS!
Types cannot relate something to us that the bible, itself, does not explicitly teach somewhere. So many go hog-wild with types. They concoct ideas that are never laid out plainly in the Bible and validate it as though the Spirit told them to do it.
When I exegeted certain passages, after time I became increasingly more and more amazed at the true divine inspiration of the scriptures. Man's mind simply cannot come up with the thoughts the apostles presented in the New Testament when we come to learn what they taught and appreciate how it relates to the rest of scripture.
Threaded Mode
