Exegesis vs Eisegesis

[apothanein kerdos]

Could an unbeliever, trained in "exegesis", understand the Bible better than an ignorant believing fisherman?

Acts 4:13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,

and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,

they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them,

that they had been with Jesus.

Why did the religious leaders not recogize Jesus ... poor exegesis?

Who says that they were ignorant fisherman? That is not what the Bible says. We have this image (thanks to movies and oil paintings) that they were dumb illiterate men, but that is not what the Bible says. The enemies of Jesus claimed that he was uneducated, but yet Jesus was a trained Rabbi and Torah teacher even allowed to teach in the Temple.

Let me ask you this... Why did Jesus upbraid Nicodemus for not understanding the concept of being born again? If as an unbeliever, Nicodemus was unable to "exegete" that concept from the OT, would Jesus have been fair in criticizing Nicodemus for not being able to understand something that was impossible for him to know in the first place??? The fact that Nicodemus was upbraided by Christ means that it was knowable even by him, as an unbeliever. He was without excuse.

Why do people place such a high premium on ignorance when it comes to the Bible??

Kenod, tell you what... The next time you or someone in your family member needs medical care like surgery or some kind of serious treatment, I challenge you NOT to find the best trained physician or specialist in that field of care. Don't look for the doctor who has multiple degrees was the head of his class and hadyears of experience treating your illness. Don't look for the doctor who goes by the book and has a high degree of success. I challenge you to put your life in the hands of a medical school flunkie who knows just enough about the human body to be dangerous. I challenge you to be just as reckless about your health as you are about the Bible.

Better yet, find someone who isn't even a doctor, but claims to be able to perform surgery "by the spirit."

I say all of that just to demonstrate how absurd some of these positions sound when applied to other contexts. We would never place such a high premium on ignorance with respect to things like health care, building a house, choosing a broker, etc. Yet we just choose to chuck intellect and knowledge to the wind when it comes to the Bible.

[rtwo]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there's an argument here. Are we actually arguing about wanting to find out as much about the word of God as we are able?

Do you have to know the historical background of the text, and fully comprehend the literary place in which certain Scripture falls in order to be saved? No. But why wouldn't you want to? Why wouldn't you want to get as much as possible out of the Words of our God?

[Scarletprayers]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there's an argument here. Are we actually arguing about wanting to find out as much about the word of God as we are able?

Do you have to know the historical background of the text, and fully comprehend the literary place in which certain Scripture falls in order to be saved? No. But why wouldn't you want to? Why wouldn't you want to get as much as possible out of the Words of our God?

exactly!

[kenod]

When I say I believe Romans 1 teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, I am told by some that I am biased against gays, OR I have not considered the historical & cultural context, OR I have not examined the original Greek, OR I have not looked at Paul

[Guest man]

When I say I believe Romans 1 teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, I am told by some that I am biased against gays, OR I have not considered the historical & cultural context, OR I have not examined the original Greek, OR I have not looked at Paul

[Scarletprayers]

When I say I believe Romans 1 teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, I am told by some that I am biased against gays, OR I have not considered the historical & cultural context, OR I have not examined the original Greek, OR I have not looked at Paul's overall message, OR

[apothanein kerdos]

When I say I believe Romans 1 teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, I am told by some that I am biased against gays, OR I have not considered the historical & cultural context, OR I have not examined the original Greek, OR I have not looked at Paul

[kenod]

When I say I believe Romans 1 teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, I am told by some that I am biased against gays, OR I have not considered the historical & cultural context, OR I have not examined the original Greek, OR I have not looked at Paul

Edited May 28, 2007 by kenod

[Guest shiloh357]

My intention is to inject a note of caution that intellectual analysis does not always give the correct interpretation of Scripture, not to deny the value of in-depth Bible study.

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

Every text in Scripture only has ONE interpretation because the author only has one main, central idea. As a piece of literature that Bible is no different than other literary works. God designed the Bible to be approachable and undersandable by human intellect, and so he uses human literary devices to communicate with us. He condescends to us, and employs methods of communication and literary devices whereby we can test, investigate and substantiate the words of Scripture. The bible is designed by God to be approached intellectually.

When we have several DDs all arguing for their own theological perspective, what should we do? Pick the one with the highest qualifications; pick the one that most closely agrees with our church's doctrine; pick the one we think lives the most Christ-like life; .... Most of us would fall back on our denominational bias: Catholic; Protestant-liberal; Protestant-evangelical; Pentecostal-charismatic; etc

No, what I do is study for myself. I am not a seminary graduate. I do not hold advanced degrees in theology, but I do not use that as an excuse to be ignorant. My denom. affiliation is S. Baptist, but I have learned to glean from the writings of several scholars from various sectors within protestantism. I don't always agree with some of their positions, but I can gain benefit. I always reserve the right to think for myself. I do rely on men as a crutch, but I have the good sense to know that God has placed teachers in the Body of Christ for a reason, and I am foolish and arrogant not to take advantage of those who have gone before me and have done the "heavy-lifting."

That is why I learned the rules hermenuetics for myself so that I can do my own independent analysis of Scripture. It allows me the freedom to test my own conclusions against what is already out there.

I don't know about you, but deciding who has, and who does not have, the Holy Spirit is a rather daunting task, and one I prefer to avoid. Did Mother Theresa have the Holy Spirit? What about Billy Graham? What about Martin Luther?

Oh please... it is not a matter of deciding who does or does not have the Holy Spirit. That is just nonsense. The point is that so often, people use, or should I say misuse the Holy Spirit as a way keeping anyone from challenging or scrutinizing what they claim the Holy Spirit "told" them. I have seen a lot of really bad, bad theology blamed on the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible according the literary devices and forms that we could understand and investigate. It, therefore, does not follow that He would intentionally supply a different meaning to the Scripture that would be contradictory or altogether different than what could attained by an proper literary analysis. In fact, it would decietful to do so. The Bible is designed to be intellectually satisfying, and so it follows that man should be able understand intellectually. The Holy Spirit is trying to communicate with the mind of men as well as their hearts. That should not be too farfetched to understand.

[kenod]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there's an argument here. Are we actually arguing about wanting to find out as much about the word of God as we are able?

Do you have to know the historical background of the text, and fully comprehend the literary place in which certain Scripture falls in order to be saved? No. But why wouldn't you want to? Why wouldn't you want to get as much as possible out of the Words of our God?

I agree with your comments ... even though you seem to think I'm disagreeing.

The argument being presented in the OP is that there is one correct interpretation of Scripture, and this interpretation can be discovered by correctly applying exegetical principles. I disagree with that conclusion, although I am not against that approach to Bible study.

Obviously there are many highly trained theologians in the world supporting a wide range of different interpretations. Why is your understanding of a passage of Scripture superior to someone else's who has sincerely and studiously applied exegetical analysis to studying the same passage? Ultimately, the question is: Why do you believe what you believe?

The question of the Rapture is a prime example of exegesis gone mad: pre-, mid-, post-tribulation theories abound, along with a few other variations. Theologians (and others) will make your head spin with their different views, each claiming to have correctly exegeted the relevant passages.

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.

Edited May 28, 2007 by kenod