I’ve been wondering recently: Why don’t we do exegesis like Philo? In our canon we have the words:
Every scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the person of God might be prepared for every good work
This is exactly the sort of sentiment that’s expressed in Philo’s approach to the Bible: He believes that every bit of Genesis MUST have some sort of moral application, because it’s Scripture – so even if it is already entirely applicable in its own right, he discerns another level at which it can be applied for virtuous living. Many of the patristics notice this and draw on Philo’s model. So why don’t we? This approach seems to be approved in our canon, so why do I find myself so uncomfortable with these early fathers’ exegetical flights of fancy?