Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
If I have explicit statements of truth, then I use a bible story for an illustration Im not necessarily using a verse or story out of context to prove doctrine but to illustrate a bible truth.
I'll give a slightly different example. We are going through the temple in a bible study. Most of the "study" revolves around types and shadows. For example the board used to make the walls are acacia wood overlayed with gold. It is claimed by the authors that this is a type of Christ...the wood represents his humanity and the gold His Deity. We find this as a bible truth..that Jesus is both God and man, yet we never find that the board was made this way as a type. I can find types and shadows all through out the bible that the bible never actually says is a type or shadow. This too is sort of using the bible as an illustration to teach a bible truth.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
