The fear of God is not a subjective emotion of terror, but the obedience of God's law.
Note: cf. Kline's definition of a willingness to live according to God's word, despite what appears right to the senses and to reason.
is Genesis 22 an example of the Jerusalem establishment validating itself through the appropriation of the prestigious figure of Abraham (and thereby invalidating any rival sanctuary)? Is it not implying that valid, God-ordained sacrificial worship as specified in torah takes place in Jerusalem (and not elsewhere)? Does it not convey the message that appropriate human response to God, the `fear of
Note: (cont)
Matt. 28:18-2o is the key to the understanding of the whole book.6 This is similar in principle to our study of the Emmaus story where, although the focus was on the story in its own right, it became clear that the story functions as a kind of hermeneutical key to the gospel as a whole.
Note: it seems that this is a good rule for any book. If it is coherent, it is movjng toward hat conclusion. To know the conclusion wil give insight into the parts.
If Jesus is Son to God, then he is in a position to be a channel for divine power; and indeed in his ministry Jesus will exercise this power for others, both to feed and to heal. The question is whether he should exercise this power for himself, even to meet a legitimate need of hunger. The danger in this is that as soon as the divine power is used for himself, then it may become a means to his own ends. A relationship of mutuality and trust could be reduced, albeit subtly, to a means of self-gratification.
Note: cf. to Abraham's intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18-19), but not for himself (Gen 22)