Chad, I believe it is. It is a step in the systematic theology process and is a valid hermeneutic. While I think that we must begin with authorial intent hermeneutics, we must move beyond that. The ananlogy of Scripture or analogy of faith (analogia fidei) causes us to move to this next step. Therefore, not only to I think it is valid, I believe it is a necessary step that people often fail to take and are introduced to many pains.

Michael, what about the “Christological” hermenuetic. Seeing the OT as types and shadows of later fulfillment in the NT. Similar to how Christ spoke of all Scripture being filled in him and speaking about him.

Is that a valid hermenuetic?

This didn’t post the first time so I’ll try again…

Michael,

You might find this interesting:

The serpent’s enticement. The Torah does not say how much time elapsed between the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The Sages however, tell us explicitly that all the events related here — including the birth of Cain and Abel — occurred on the day Adam was created. He had been given only one commandment: not to eat from the tree, and now his resolve would be tested to see if he could withstand temptation.

The consensus of the commentators is that the serpent of the narrative was literally a serpent. They differ regarding what force it represented: the Evil Inclination, Satan, or the Angel of Death. According to the Midrash, before this cunning beast was cursed, it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication.

The Chumash Travel-Size Edition – With Complete Sabbath Prayers. Nosson Scherman, et al., eds. (New York: Mesorah, 2001), 15, n. 1-14. [bold and italics theirs]

Michael,

You might find this interesting:

The serpent’s enticement. The Torah does not say how much time elapsed between the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The Sages however, tell us explicitly that all the events related here — including the birth of Cain and Abel — occurred on the day Adam was created. He had been given only one commandment: not to eat from the tree, and now his resolve would be tested to see if he could withstand temptation.

The consensus of the commentators is that the serpent of the narrative was literally a serpent. They differ regarding what force it represented: the Evil Inclination, Satan, or the Angel of Death. According to the Midrash, before this cunning beast was cursed, it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication.

The Chumash Travel-Size Edition – With Complete Sabbath Prayers. Nosson Scherman, et al., eds. (New York: Mesorah, 2001), 15, n. 1-14. [bold and italics theirs]

My main point of this blog so far has been to encourage people to not only do good exegesis (without which, we are lost in a sea of subjectivity) but also good theology.

I have read many arguments for open theism which takes particular passages and the “what it meant then” and “how they understood it then” and form a theology based on this. This is called biblical theology, not systematic theology. As well, I have seen advocates of soul sleep deny an intermediate state because those in the Old Testament, believers did not have understanding of the intermediate state (which I think is correct).

If you don’t do good theology, then your are taking only a peice of the puzzle and your beliefs will be ill-informed at best and, in many cases, very heretical.

Vance, I agree. I have not seen any evidence to suggest such. I wonder what orthodox Jews would think today about the serpant.

I think it depends on how one defines exegesis. When I studied Old Testament exegesis under Doug Stuart at Gordon-Conwell, Stuart included theological considerations as part of the exegetical process. Here are some of the questions he recommended answering as part of one’s exegesis of a passage:

“To what theological doctrines does the passage add light? What are its theological concerns? . . . Where does the passage seem to fit within the full system of truth contained in Christian theology? How is the passage to be harmonized with the greater theological whole?” (Stuart; Old Testament Exegesis, 2nd ed.; p. 82)

Vance,

Reminds me of this movie I saw called Time Changer — The main character is a professor and says to his students, “remember, when science contradicts the Bible it means that the science is wrong” — sounds an awful lot like Ken Ham and his cohorts. I do realize that this was not on point with the post… sorry

Michael,

I don’t know that there is any one Jewish view about the serpant. Some interpret it to have been the yetzer hara (evil inclination), some a literal beast of the field who at one point had legs (see Rashi), but I haven’t come across a source that interpreted the serpant to be Satan. Doesn’t mean it isn’t out there, just means I haven’t seen it.

Nick,

I remember a story about how some monks responded to Galileo when he asked them to look in his telescope. They refused to even look, saying that if it contradicted Scripture (meaning their understanding of Scripture) then whatever they saw would be a lie. If it agreed with Scripture, then there was no reason to look at it anyway, since they could just read Scripture. Sounds eerily familiar at times.