Exegesis vs Eisegesis

[apothanein kerdos]

I agree. Simply having a sound methodology does not guarantee that one will arrive at the text's meaning. Illumination by the Holy Spirit is essential in understanding the text. But, one should not abandon sound hermeneutical principles just because we are engaged in a spiritual activity. God chose to revel Himself through the agancy of human literature. So using sound interpretive principles is essential for partnering with the Holy Spirit to ascertain meaning.

One of the underlying principles of hermeneutics is that the Bible does not contain hidden meanings ... what if it does? What if the "fig tree" is not just a fig tree? What if the "virgins" with "oil" in their lamps, and not just virgins with oil in their lamps?

It depends on the context. Obviously parables, Psalms, and other metaphorical passages are not meant to be taken prima facie. That is not to say there is a "hidden meaning," but instead that sometimes the first impression is not the best one.

The whole idea of a "hidden meaning" actually comes from an ancient Jewish interpretation method that was influenced by Platonism (the forerunner to Gnosticism). The Alexandrian rabbi Philo was a huge proponent of the theory. Later Christians, mostly the Alexandrian fathers, adopted this method as well. The problem with this method is that it is inherently Platonic at its core, assuming that the written word is too "physical" or "material" and that there is a deeper form behind it. It degrades God and says that He cannot really use written language to say what He means, but has to hide it in some form of code.

It does not degrade God, it acknowledges the way in which God has chosen to reveal His Word. By reading The Revelation one becomes very aware of that concept.

Revelation is a metaphor, not a "hidden message." Again, this is Gnostic at heart. It relies on subjectivity and is often arbitrary - i.e. 'The Bible means this.' Why? 'Because it has been revealed by the Spirit.' There is no accountability in this Hellenistic method, which can lead to quack interpretations.

[kenod]

Revelation is a metaphor, not a "hidden message." Again, this is Gnostic at heart. It relies on subjectivity and is often arbitrary - i.e. 'The Bible means this.' Why? 'Because it has been revealed by the Spirit.' There is no accountability in this Hellenistic method, which can lead to quack interpretations.

And we know that well meaning exegesis also results in numerous different interpretations ... including the very quacky preterist version!

"Accountability" must be Scripturally based, and not rely upon applying arbitrary man-made rules.

One cannot say "this means that" without sound Scriptural evidence.

Let the Bible interpret the Bible.

[apothanein kerdos]

Revelation is a metaphor, not a "hidden message." Again, this is Gnostic at heart. It relies on subjectivity and is often arbitrary - i.e. 'The Bible means this.' Why? 'Because it has been revealed by the Spirit.' There is no accountability in this Hellenistic method, which can lead to quack interpretations.

And we know that well meaning exegesis also results in numerous different interpretations ... including the very quacky preterist version!

"Accountability" must be Scripturally based, and not rely upon applying arbitrary man-made rules.

One cannot say "this means that" without sound Scriptural evidence.

Let the Bible interpret the Bible.

And how do you get sound scriptural evidence? Through exegesis, not through what you're proposing.

[kenod]

Revelation is a metaphor, not a "hidden message." Again, this is Gnostic at heart. It relies on subjectivity and is often arbitrary - i.e. 'The Bible means this.' Why? 'Because it has been revealed by the Spirit.' There is no accountability in this Hellenistic method, which can lead to quack interpretations.

And we know that well meaning exegesis also results in numerous different interpretations ... including the very quacky preterist version!

"Accountability" must be Scripturally based, and not rely upon applying arbitrary man-made rules.

One cannot say "this means that" without sound Scriptural evidence.

Let the Bible interpret the Bible.

And how do you get sound scriptural evidence? Through exegesis, not through what you're proposing.

I'm not proposing that we dispense with good solid Bible study, that provides continuity and integration of the Scriptures.

But frequently I have seen an understanding of Scripture rejected (eg the "fig tree") because it does not meet the perceived criteria of exegetical excellence ... so called.

There is a place for understanding that transcends the limitations of our human minds.

[apothanein kerdos]

There is a place for understanding that transcends the limitations of our human minds.

So God is an idiot is what you're saying. He gave us minds that, in the end, don't do us any good.

[kenod]

There is a place for understanding that transcends the limitations of our human minds.

So God is an idiot is what you're saying. He gave us minds that, in the end, don't do us any good.

He gave you a mind ... he also gave you a spirit ... use both is what I'm saying.

[apothanein kerdos]

There is a place for understanding that transcends the limitations of our human minds.

So God is an idiot is what you're saying. He gave us minds that, in the end, don't do us any good.

He gave you a mind ... he also gave you a spirit ... use both is what I'm saying.

They're the same thing.

[kenod]

There is a place for understanding that transcends the limitations of our human minds.

So God is an idiot is what you're saying. He gave us minds that, in the end, don't do us any good.

He gave you a mind ... he also gave you a spirit ... use both is what I'm saying.

They're the same thing.

Now I see the problem!

God speaks to our mind - He also speaks to our spirit/heart

Some people call it "intuition", or "gut feeling", or "inner witness", or "understand with the heart", or "revelation"

"I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind;

I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind."

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

[apothanein kerdos]

Now I see the problem!

God speaks to our mind - He also speaks to our spirit/heart

Some people call it "intuition", or "gut feeling", or "inner witness", or "understand with the heart", or "revelation"

"I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind;

I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind."

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

It's not a problem at all.

The mind, at least the intellectual portion, is what makes us human. It thinks about the deeper things of life that no other species in this world does. No other species comes up with mathematical discoveries, develops tools to know the universe, thinks of their condition and place in the world, etc. Man is the only creature that does this because we are made in the image of God. Our mind, the intellectual side of man, is the spirit/soul of man. To split the two is to take this away from man and to inherently lower the intellectual attribute.

If the heart is defined as "emotions" or "gut feeling," then the intellect will always supersede the heart. If, however, you take a Hebrew view of the heart - which includes the mind and places it above the emotions and feelings of man - then there is no dichotomy.

When one uses his intellect for good, he is inevitably working within his spirit.

[kenod]

Now I see the problem!

God speaks to our mind - He also speaks to our spirit/heart

Some people call it "intuition", or "gut feeling", or "inner witness", or "understand with the heart", or "revelation"

"I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind;

I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind."

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

It's not a problem at all.

The mind, at least the intellectual portion, is what makes us human. It thinks about the deeper things of life that no other species in this world does. No other species comes up with mathematical discoveries, develops tools to know the universe, thinks of their condition and place in the world, etc. Man is the only creature that does this because we are made in the image of God. Our mind, the intellectual side of man, is the spirit/soul of man. To split the two is to take this away from man and to inherently lower the intellectual attribute.

If the heart is defined as "emotions" or "gut feeling," then the intellect will always supersede the heart. If, however, you take a Hebrew view of the heart - which includes the mind and places it above the emotions and feelings of man - then there is no dichotomy.

When one uses his intellect for good, he is inevitably working within his spirit.

and do you love intellectually?