Doerfler: In Genesis, chapter eighteen, Abraham comes into contact with three angels or messengers of God. There are many different interpretations of this specific event and Doerfler works through these interpretations in this article. She writes about and analyzes interpretations from early church fathers such as Justyn Martyr, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Origen, and Caesarius. Doerfler does not focus on what is happening in this chapter but rather on who is on the scene, the angels. There are different views, some more widely accepted than others, about who these three “angels” are and who they represent. Some believe that the numerical value of the angels represents the presence of the Trinity while others view the whole group
…show more content…
Keun and Venter interpret the main point in this chapter as God fulfilling His promises regardless of what Abraham does. They do this by drawing upon the wording in the chapter itself and also by relating the chapter to the whole picture of the promise fulfilling story. Keun and Venter use this way of interpreting to fight against the common belief that Chapter eighteen is all about how Abraham earned the blessing of God by showing excellent hospitality to the messengers of God. They use the chapters surrounding eighteen to point to specific facts that direct us to towards their interpretation stated above. Facts such as Abraham was already promised Isaac before he showed hospitality and also the hardships and stumbling blocks that Abraham went through before the fulfillment of the promise points to Gods steadfast grace and mercy. Keun and Venter also go into some detail about the specific wording in the Chapter itself and how this chapter does not specifically correlate to Hebrews 13:2 which some, like Arterbury believe. In the end, they wanted to make clear that God fulfills His promise because of His mercy and grace towards those who are His children.
Analysis: Even though this article is not a direct response to Arterbury, I thought it adequately refuted a lot of his views. The fact that Keun and Venter connected chapter eighteen to the whole story is something that gives them credibility in my eyes because the Bible can not be interpreted apart from itself. This connection gives them a logical way to analyze the specific wording of the chapter as well. Their overall interpretation makes sense from a conservative evangelical perspective, but I wish that they would have connected it more to the New Testament in some shape or
Keun and Venter interpret the main point in this chapter as God fulfilling His promises regardless of what Abraham does. They do this by drawing upon the wording in the chapter itself and also by relating the chapter to the whole picture of the promise fulfilling story. Keun and Venter use this way of interpreting to fight against the common belief that Chapter eighteen is all about how Abraham earned the blessing of God by showing excellent hospitality to the messengers of God. They use the chapters surrounding eighteen to point to specific facts that direct us to towards their interpretation stated above. Facts such as Abraham was already promised Isaac before he showed hospitality and also the hardships and stumbling blocks that Abraham went through before the fulfillment of the promise points to Gods steadfast grace and mercy. Keun and Venter also go into some detail about the specific wording in the Chapter itself and how this chapter does not specifically correlate to Hebrews 13:2 which some, like Arterbury believe. In the end, they wanted to make clear that God fulfills His promise because of His mercy and grace towards those who are His children.
Analysis: Even though this article is not a direct response to Arterbury, I thought it adequately refuted a lot of his views. The fact that Keun and Venter connected chapter eighteen to the whole story is something that gives them credibility in my eyes because the Bible can not be interpreted apart from itself. This connection gives them a logical way to analyze the specific wording of the chapter as well. Their overall interpretation makes sense from a conservative evangelical perspective, but I wish that they would have connected it more to the New Testament in some shape or