Exegesis vs Eisegesis

[kenod]

Oh please... it is not a matter of deciding who does or does not have the Holy Spirit. That is just nonsense.

That is what I meant but you put it much more nicely

Intellectual analysis will always give the correct interpretation, so long as that analysis is purposed to discover the intent of the author.

So what do you do when your intellectual analysis disagrees with someone else's intellectual analysis?

One tip I've picked up is just label the other guy's interpretation "eisegesis" ... seems to work for some

Edited May 28, 2007 by kenod

[Guest man]

So what do you do when your intellectual analysis disagrees with someone else's intellectual analysis?

One tip I've picked up is just label the other guy's interpretation "eisegesis" ... seems to work for some

Good point.

[Wingwalker]

AK thank you for your post. I am going through a Bible Study on How to Study your Bible. So far it has covered the same bases. But I did like your approach. Thank you again for posting this.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Intellectual analysis will always give the correct interpretation, so long as that analysis is purposed to discover the intent of the author.

So what do you do when your intellectual analysis disagrees with someone else's intellectual analysis?

One tip I've picked up is just label the other guy's interpretation "eisegesis" ... seems to work for some

You are missing a key point. It depends on the motive behind your approach to the Scriptures. Pure literary analysis will not produce different results for different people.

The problems that arise seem to be the most pronounced when we approach the Bible with the intent to prove that our doctrine or our perspective is true. The rules of hermenuetics can be tainted when we seek to use the Bible to prove a particular point of view, rather than simply allowing the text to speak for itself. Unfortunately, that human element is far and way too prevelant in theological circles. Hermenuetics are for the purpose learning the true intent and main idea of the author within a given text.

Eisegesis takes place when someone imposes their opinion on a text with no support from the text. For example: I have heard people take passages relative to the power of God and relate it to the explosive power of dynamite. This is based on the fact that one of the words in Greek for the English "power" is dunamos, where we get the English word "dynamite." The preacher/speaker then relates our usage of "dynamite" to the passages that contain the Greek word dunamos. The problem is that dynamite did not exist the near east. Gun powder had not made it to that part of the world in the first century, and so dunamos would not have carried any connotation of explosive power in the mind of Paul or any of the apostles. That concept was read into the passages.

Eisegesis ususally occurs when we try to read our modern, western Christianity into the New Testament or even the Old Testament, and failing to realize that much of what we take for granted in our Christian culture of today would have been completely foreign to 1st century believers. It also occurs when people have an agenda and a false teaching they wish to spread. The most successful cults in the world are the ones which use the Bible.

It is precisely a lack of hermenuetics that has led to so many Christians in mainline denominations converting to Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, The World Wide Church of God and other cults.

Ignorance, where hermenuetics is concerned, is not a virtue. It is not a sign spirituality.

I strongly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of Scripture to the individual, even the ignorant and unlearned.

Bible study is beneficial, but in arriving at what God wants you to know, I believe prayer is more important than reading the detailed textual analyses of numerous theologians.

It would appear that you are trying to answer an objection that has not been raised.

The question of the Rapture is a prime example of exegesis gone mad

Nonsense. It is an example of the frailty of humanity. It is not a reflection on any failure of hermenuetics. Every person operates from a paradigm. A paradigm is your frame of reference; they way you see the world. We all have it, and we operate in it almost unconsciously. It is our paradigm that causes us to see the world a certain way; therefore, we often perceive those who do not see things our way, as not having a grasp on reality. That is why two people can approach the same set of facts, and arrive at two different conclusions. It is not because the facts are different, but because the perceptions they bring to the facts, determine how they understand those facts. Hermenuetics cannot and is not designed to overcome that aspect of human element. It would be unrealistic to have such expectations. Hermeneutics will always produce the correct interpretation, but it cannot be held accountable for how an individual applies the information provided.

[kenod]

Pure literary analysis will not produce different results for different people.

When applied by fallible people, "pure literary analysis" is never pure, and never can be ... that's why there are different results for different people.

The Bible is infallible - the rules of hermeneutics are not.

btw, your repeated use of the word "nonsense" is becoming a little tedious ... do you mind dropping it, please.

Edited May 28, 2007 by kenod

[Guest man]

The question of the Rapture is a prime example of exegesis gone mad

Nonsense. It is an example of the frailty of humanity. It is not a reflection on any failure of hermenuetics. Every person operates from a paradigm. A paradigm is your frame of reference; they way you see the world. We all have it, and we operate in it almost unconsciously. It is our paradigm that causes us to see the world a certain way; therefore, we often perceive those who do not see things our way, as not having a grasp on reality. That is why two people can approach the same set of facts, and arrive at two different conclusions. It is not because the facts are different, but because the perceptions they bring to the facts, determine how they understand those facts. Hermenuetics cannot and is not designed to overcome that aspect of human element. It would be unrealistic to have such expectations. Hermeneutics will always produce the correct interpretation, but it cannot be held accountable for how an individual applies the information provided.

If what you say here is true....how is hermeneutics useful to anyone else but the one using it?

[Guest shiloh357]

Pure literary analysis will not produce different results for different people.

When applied to Scripture, "pure literary analysis" is never pure, and never can be ... that's why there are different results for different people.

I should clarify... when I use the word "pure" I mean "dispassionate." I mean when we apply literary analysis to the Bible as a piece of literature, we are not going to come up with 50 different meanings. The author had an intent and a main idea, and it is possible to arrive at exactly what the author was intending to convey.

What you do with that information gleaned from the text of the Scriptures is altogether different, and that is the realm in which so much disagreement takes place.

We have been conditioned to believe that the Bible means "ABC" for you and "XYZ" for me. Much of the disagreements have nothing to do with hermenuetics, but with how the information gained from heremenuetics is applied. The different results are not a reflection on heremenuetics.

[Guest shiloh357]

The question of the Rapture is a prime example of exegesis gone mad

Nonsense. It is an example of the frailty of humanity. It is not a reflection on any failure of hermenuetics. Every person operates from a paradigm. A paradigm is your frame of reference; they way you see the world. We all have it, and we operate in it almost unconsciously. It is our paradigm that causes us to see the world a certain way; therefore, we often perceive those who do not see things our way, as not having a grasp on reality. That is why two people can approach the same set of facts, and arrive at two different conclusions. It is not because the facts are different, but because the perceptions they bring to the facts, determine how they understand those facts. Hermenuetics cannot and is not designed to overcome that aspect of human element. It would be unrealistic to have such expectations. Hermeneutics will always produce the correct interpretation, but it cannot be held accountable for how an individual applies the information provided.

If what you say here is true....how is hermeneutics useful to anyone else but the one using it?

Hermenuetics do not belong to one group of people. Hermenuetics belong to everyone. You use it every day. Do you read the newspaper the same way you read a cookbook or a biography or a fictional novel? Of course not. You are already aware that different types of literature serve different purposes and you almost unconciously switch gears when you read different types of documents or manuscripts. You are able to ascertain figurative and metaphorical literary devices in books or newpapers columns and so forth.

If I write the following phrase, "I live to see Old Glory paint the wind," do I have to explain that to you, or would you already know what I meant? That is hermenuetics in operation. No American would have any problem knowing what I meant. But two-thousand years from now, that might not be the case. If someone two-thousand years reads that, how will they know what that phrase means?

Hermenuetics are not difficult, but we have not been trained to apply them to the Bible. "Intelligence" has been characterized as equivilant to "Pharisaism" and other such nonsense, and anyone who has a half-way intelligent approach to the Bible is maligned as quenching the spirit. As I demonstrated yesterday, our approach to the Bible can really appear absurd when the same anti-intellecutal attitude is applied to other contexts. It would seem that we would give the Bible the same respect intellectually that would give our choice of doctor or finanical adivisor.

[kenod]

Much of the disagreements have nothing to do with hermenuetics, but with how the information gained from heremenuetics is applied. The different results are not a reflection on heremenuetics.

A point I added to my last post is that the rules of hermeneutics are not infallible - you seem to be implying you think they are. Hermeneutics was designed by fallible men based on a set of rational assumptions - you may think those assumptions are correct - good for you. I think they are flawed. They are flawed precisely because human reasoning is not capable of understanding the mind of God - that's why the Holy Spirit was given.

1 Cor 2:9-11

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,

neither have entered into the heart of man,

the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:

for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Edited May 28, 2007 by kenod

[Guest shiloh357]

Much of the disagreements have nothing to do with hermenuetics, but with how the information gained from heremenuetics is applied. The different results are not a reflection on heremenuetics.

A point I added to my last post is that the rules of hermeneutics are not infallible - you seem to be implying you think they are. Hermeneutics was designed by fallible men based on a set of rational assumptions - you may think those assumptions are correct - good for you. I think they are flawed. They are flawed precisely because human reasoning is not capable of understanding the mind of God - that's why the Holy Spirit was given.

Kindly point to where I said or implied they were infallible.

The purpose of hermenuetics is not to "understand the mind of God." I never said it was. The purpose of hermeneutics is to understand the orginal intent and main idea of the author in order to get a better idea of what original audience would have taken away from the text. It is not a substitute for the Holy Spirit.

The Bible does not say that human reasoning cannot understand mind of God. The Bible says that the natural man (someone governed by their brutish, baser nature) cannot receive the things from the mind of God because to him they are foolish.

Nicodemus, and unsaved man, was upbraided by Jesus for not understanding the concept of being born again. Jesus expected Nicodemus as a teacher of Israel to know that. Furthermore, if it is impossible for man to know and understand the mind of God, why didn't just hold off on inspiring ANY Scripture until after the resurrection of Jesus? Why send all those prophets, if no one in OT could understand them? How could God hold anyone in the OT responsibile for breaking His Covenant if they could not have understood anything God was saying in the first place?

I would also point out that hermenuetics are not the end all of Bible study and is not designed to take the place of the spiritual illumination that comes from the Holy Spirit and prayer. It works in concert with those things, but not to exclusion of them. Criticizing hermenuetics because it cannot provide spiritual illumination is about as silly as criticizing a butter knife for not be able to chop down a tree or saw a 2x4. Hermenuetics fulfill a particular purpose and achieve the purpose for which they were designed. It is not flawed because it does not fulfill a purpose it was not designed for.