Exegesis - Help!

[Mystic]

I know a Pentecostal pastor who announced in church: "Today my sermon is based on exegesis in Romans 1. " An elderly saint shouted, "Praise His holy name!"

 

[Mystic]

A Pentecostal preacher announced from the pulpit, "Today my sermon is based on exegesis on Mark 1:41-45, the story of the healing of the leper." An elderly saint shouted: "Praise His holy name!"

A homiletics (= preaching) professor gave his seminary students an interesting sermon preparation assignment. He said, "First, decide on your central point from the text. Then develop 3 points related to your central point and underline in yellow the key words in the text that support your point and hand your assignment in." Later he returned their assignment with a new one: "Now create your sermon based on the words you didn't underline!" His points was this: lectionary preachers generally preach standard conventional sermons on each text and soon run out of ideas as the 3-year lectionary repeats itself. Longevity in the pulpit and fresh preaching depend on allowing the text to raise unexpected questions and this assignment was created to develop that talent.

In the case of the healing of the leper (Mark 1:40-45), the unexpected element is Jesus' prohibition against the leper sharing his healing testimony with the locals. This is Jesus' standard practice in Mark when He has a chance to heal people privately. Why doesn't He want His miracles to made public, if they aren't viewed by a large audience? Why does He prevent the demons He exorcises from disclosing His identity? Why doesn't He explain His parables to outsiders? Part of the answer is that Jesus thinks spirituality is better caught than taught, but there are other reasons for this secrecy. Why does He similarly conceal His Messianic identity until the end of His public ministry, not even sharing it with His own disciples until Peter discerns it and makes His confession 8:27-31); and even then Jesus prohibits His disciples from proclaiming His identity as the Messiah. Why? Research on these questions might create a truly stimulating sermon. ​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Which would be full of suppositions, and extrapolations. It would take the congregation away from the actual word, and into the single mind of the pastor. The outcome would not be exegesis but eisegesis. You gain nothing.

And I noticed that your post Mystic,started by saying "based on exegesis." which means eisegesis is unavoidable, isn't it.

 

[Luce NDs]

I wouldn't brag about it, er, GOD IN CAPS aka chansen.

The fundies don't approve of same sex goings on...........

They demand different sex each time ??? Sounds kind of OT for when those sages knew a lot of people ... and we know because they let it be know biblically ... but it is sacred ... like humus! A lot of implicit and explicit messages there --- as Shakespeare said in the word ... everything ... and the understanding changes ... evolves? Just to amuse the mortals ... who take it in po' humour ... that's satyr for yah. GOOGLE Satyrs and Lilith ... tis snaky you'll see ...

 

[Luce NDs]

A Pentecostal preacher announced from the pulpit, "Today my sermon is based on exegesis on Mark 1:41-45, the story of the healing of the leper." An elderly saint shouted: "Praise His holy name!"

A homiletics (= preaching) professor gave his seminary students an interesting sermon preparation assignment. He said, "First, decide on your central point from the text. Then develop 3 points related to your central point and underline in yellow the key words in the text that support your point and hand your assignment in." Later he returned their assignment with a new one: "Now create your sermon based on the words you didn't underline!" His points was this: lectionary preachers generally preach standard conventional sermons on each text and soon run out of ideas as the 3-year lectionary repeats itself. Longevity in the pulpit and fresh preaching depend on allowing the text to raise unexpected questions and this assignment was created to develop that talent.

In the case of the healing of the leper (Mark 1:40-45), the unexpected element is Jesus' prohibition against the leper sharing his healing testimony with the locals. This is Jesus' standard practice in Mark when He has a chance to heal people privately. Why doesn't He want His miracles to made public, if they aren't viewed by a large audience? Why does He prevent the demons He exorcises from disclosing His identity? Why doesn't He explain His parables to outsiders? Part of the answer is that Jesus thinks spirituality is better caught than taught, but there are other reasons for this secrecy. Why does He similarly conceal His Messianic identity until the end of His public ministry, not even sharing it with His own disciples until Peter discerns it and makes His confession 8:27-31); and even then Jesus prohibits His disciples from proclaiming His identity as the Messiah. Why? Research on these questions might create a truly stimulating sermon. ​

[/QUOTE]

What would we label the result, mix-up, stir, or Coriolis effect? And all went down the tube to bob up elsewhere ... NOSH-ite ... or chew it over well ..

 

[Luce NDs]

Which would be full of suppositions, and extrapolations. It would take the congregation away from the actual word, and into the single mind of the pastor. The outcome would not be exegesis but eisegesis. You gain nothing.

And I noticed that your post Mystic,started by saying "based on exegesis." which means eisegesis is unavoidable, isn't it.

These items must be gotten over, under ... or preferably all about in sharing! Rings sooth?

 

[revjohn]

Good point..... Christ's response is the key - but

No buts. If you are supposed to be exegeting scripture then Christ's response is of primary importance to the text.

I just think that the social isolation is important -to understand Christ's response.

That presumes the indignation/compassion is a direct response to the question asked or the circumstances which lead to it being asked.

Which brings up the question for today's society - as followers of The Way what should our response be to social isolation of groups in our own society?

A valid question. It sets aside the text while it asks it. Decidedly anti-exegetical. On the plus side, it isn't necessarily eisegetical either because it isn't forcing an understanding on the text. Whether or not a conversation can be had without direct scripture references is not problematic, unless one is supposed to be preaching from a specific text. If, in order to preach from a text you have to ignore the text you have a problem.

The conflict between indignant and compassionate is a puzzle for me.

I suspect it should be for most. Whichever way we fall shapes our notion of who Jesus is and what Jesus is about. It has incredible potential to speak to our understanding of who God is and not just who we desire God to be. I suspect most avoid dealing with the idea of an indignant Jesus because that means Jesus has definite thoughts and feelings about things and we do not wish to find ourselves on the wrong side of Jesus. Indignant Jesus is more of a threat than is compassionate Jesus.

Is Jesus indignant because he knew that if the man told of the cure Jesus would face a kind of isolation himself -(as he could no longer preach in the towns) and his message of the Kingdom would reach fewer ears?

Certainly a possibility. What does that tell us about Christ if it is the case?

Or is Jesus indignant that he would be seen as a miracle worker, rather than a carrier of the "Good News"?

Also a possibility. If true it doesn't necessarily conflict with the first question about Jesus being isolated/estranged. What might this tell us about Christ if it is true?

Does there just have to be one reason for being indignant, could both be possible?

I'm a fan of the both/and. Which doesn't mean that there is never either/or. The text should be pointing us to which option we are dealing with.

It seems to me that seeing Jesus was aware of the negative implications of the cure, the fact that he did cure -and touched - the leper, shows that his compassion overrode his indignation.

Well, that depends on what the indignation is in response to doesn't it?

And yes, we do have Jesus expressing a preference between teaching and healing aspects of ministry. That should tell us something also. And then because Jesus is fully human (apart from being fully divine) we see nuance and fluidity in Jesus. Having expressed a preference Jesus also defers to the needs of another.

What does that tell us about who Jesus is? If we embrace the notion that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God what does it reveal to us about who God is?

There are many questions we can ask about the text. Which are the questions that the text bothers to answer?

 

[Luce NDs]

Christ remains in a subtle position in the story of life ... because the brute powers didn't wish to know better. Consider it a metaphor if Christ is considered buried between the lines in the tome ... likely myth? In God's world (eternal domain) is there room for anything to happen ... even nothing?

Oh, oh ... Jae will be dissonant ... he finds sex and sects something to be unknown ... alas an allegory of the grace of God .. a' given ... AD onus the beauty of respect and responsibility for darker messing about! Occult if you knew nothing prior to the incident .. and thus occult becomes a trial situation! God did say to test all things ... right?

It may come back at you when you regress into that small of mind where heaven is part of the state! That we hole with a spark ... the Shining? Thus lesser powers ... they can blow up in the face of it ... fascists? Mussolini screwed around with it and look what happened to that latter Dei romantic about brute powers being the resolution ...

 

[revjohn]

I'm beginning to think that exegesis is an impossible task.

It isn't impossible. It is difficult.

I can't see how these different ways of looking at the text don't veer off into eisegesis?

It isn't that they don't. It is that they might. Which is why letting the text speak for itself is a primary concern.

I'm still in boxes since the office space I now have is a fraction of the office space I once had and it is a shared space so I cannot, out of respect to the others who share it, hog all of the shelf space for myself.

So I am going to toss a quote out that I can only recall from memory and cannot properly cite. With that caveat here it comes:

Scripture is not a puzzle to be solved. It is a word which must be listened to.

Treating scripture as a puzzle allows for esotericism/gnosticism to exert undue influence on the text. The notion that there is a secret/hidden meaning that can only be achieved by certain means (generally agreeing with certain teachers) is problematic for street level evangelism.

Listening to scripture does force us to enter into the world of scripture and we are helped to do that by understanding the local context is different from our current and contemporary context. Truth, by definition, doesn't change according to the context. The God revealed in Mark 1: 40-45 is no different from the God of Genesis 1: 1 or Revelation 22: 21. Mark 1: 40-45 is another window by which we may view that God and the question is what do we see or hear that informs us about who God is?

Then we have literalists, progressives, Protestants, Catholics, Calvinists etc etc.....

Do all these different groups agree on exegesis?

They can.

Of course, once the exegesis ends we begin the work of interpretation and that is where we find the different groups diverging. The discipline of exegesis forces all of these groups to challenge their understandings. There is no one perfect theology since all theology is an approximation. Exegesis is a discipline which helps us to keep our theology from ossifying.

If exegesis of scripture never challenges your theology then you are doing something wrong.

If your theology constantly challenges scripture then you are definitely doing something wrong.

Apart from that, systematic theologies (agreed or disagreed with) tend to emphasize more the what is known allowing for portions of God to remain mystery/unknown.

 

[revsdd]

... Which brings up the question for today's society - as followers of The Way what should our response be to social isolation of groups in our own society?

A valid question. It sets aside the text while it asks it. Decidedly anti-exegetical. On the plus side, it isn't necessarily eisegetical either because it isn't forcing an understanding on the text. Whether or not a conversation can be had without direct scripture references is not problematic, unless one is supposed to be preaching from a specific text. If, in order to preach from a text you have to ignore the text you have a problem.

Focussing on this part of the post by Pilgrims Progress and the reply from John.

Pilgrims Progress is entering the world of application. How does (or should) the Scripture impact our behaviour in today's world? That's always a key question.

I do not believe that application "sets aside the text ..." Setting aside the text would be deciding how I want to act before I even approach the text and then making the text nothing more than a proof text at best which I will use (abuse) to justify what I've already decided. Properly, the text should guide us during the process of application.

To me, application is neither exegesis nor eisegesis (or, perhaps, it's both exegesis and eisegesis.) We take basic principles, ethics, etc. out of the text, but applying an ancient text to the modern world does require reading some things back into the text.

 

[revjohn]

Pilgrims Progress is entering the world of application. How does (or should) the Scripture impact our behaviour in today's world? That's always a key question.

That is fair comment.

I do not believe that application "sets aside the text ..." Setting aside the text would be deciding how I want to act before I even approach the text and then making the text nothing more than a proof text at best which I will use (abuse) to justify what I've already decided. Properly, the text should guide us during the process of application.

Also fair comment. Deciding on application before engaging in exegesis is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Luce NDs]

Does the implicit and explicit associations in the text and the person associated allow a great deal of flexibility about how varied strangers can get along with old scripts?

Encourages a broad-based perspective of how to deal with social science --- an observation! Perhaps means nothing to many ...

 

[Mystic]

Which would be full of suppositions, and extrapolations. It would take the congregation away from the actual word, and into the single mind of the pastor. The outcome would not be exegesis but eisegesis. You gain nothing.

No, the messianic secret is one of the most researched themes in Marcan scholarship. Helpful sermonic application can be gleaned from consulting the scholarly literature on this theme in various Marcan texts and thus make these texts bristle with provocative contemporary relevance.

 

[paradox3]

Deciding on application before engaging in exegesis is putting the cart before the horse.

I have encountered bible study based on Walter Wink's Transforming Bible Study and a second approach entitled Dwelling in the Word. Both seem to focus primarily on application but maybe I am missing something. Where does exegesis come in (or does it?)

 

[revsdd]

I have encountered bible study based on Walter Wink's Transforming Bible Study and a second approach entitled Dwelling in the Word. Both seem to focus primarily on application but maybe I am missing something. Where does exegesis come in (or does it?)

One needs to study the text before deciding on how to apply it. That's called exegesis. A simple example: Proverbs 13:24.

"Those who spare the rod hate their children; but those who love them are diligent to discipline them."

This is the famous verse usually incorrectly stated as "spare the rod and spoil the child."

It is commonly used to justify the corporal punishment of children, so it's very easy for a person to do no exegesis of the text, be convinced that corporal punishment is right, search this verse up and then apply it by using corporal punishment of their children. That's applying a verse without exegesis, but only with eisegesis.

Proper exegesis would have to do a full study of how the image of "the rod" is used in Scripture. For example, contrast this with "your rod and your staff they comfort me." Also, the rod is a tool used by a shepherd to guide the sheep, not to beat them. How can we justify the image of the rod as both a source of comfort and guidance but also a source of physical punishment? Also, one would have to deal with the proper meaning of "discipline." Is it synonymous with punishment? Or does disciplining children mean teaching them or guiding them. (Same root as disciple = learner and discipling = teaching.)

So, rather than "if you don't physically punish your children you don't actually love them and if you really love them you will make sure that you physically punish them," the proper interpretation of the verse could well be "if you don't provide comfort and guidance to your children you must not love them, but if you do love them you will provide these things."

Those two contrasting interpretations lead to very different applications. Personally, I'd argue that the second one is more faithful to the text and relies on exegesis, whereas the first misses the historical and biblical context and is more the product of eisegesis.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

No, the messianic secret is one of the most researched themes in Marcan scholarship. Helpful sermonic application can be gleaned from consulting the scholarly literature on this theme in various Marcan texts and thus make these texts bristle with provocative contemporary relevance.

So no different to what I said then. Just the pastor would be using other pastors ideas intermingled with his own.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Ah, exegesis, exegesis, wherefore art thou?..............

It would be an interesting exercise if all ministers/priests/pastors had to preface their sermons in writing with the exegesis of the Biblical passage for a particular Sunday.

If so, would it be the same?

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

One needs to study the text before deciding on how to apply it. That's called exegesis. A simple example: Proverbs 13:24.

"Those who spare the rod hate their children; but those who love them are diligent to discipline them."

This is the famous verse usually incorrectly stated as "spare the rod and spoil the child."

It is commonly used to justify the corporal punishment of children, so it's very easy for a person to do no exegesis of the text, be convinced that corporal punishment is right, search this verse up and then apply it by using corporal punishment of their children. That's applying a verse without exegesis, but only with eisegesis.

Proper exegesis would have to do a full study of how the image of "the rod" is used in Scripture. For example, contrast this with "your rod and your staff they comfort me." Also, the rod is a tool used by a shepherd to guide the sheep, not to beat them. How can we justify the image of the rod as both a source of comfort and guidance but also a source of physical punishment? Also, one would have to deal with the proper meaning of "discipline." Is it synonymous with punishment? Or does disciplining children mean teaching them or guiding them. (Same root as disciple = learner and discipling = teaching.)

So, rather than "if you don't physically punish your children you don't actually love them and if you really love them you will make sure that you physically punish them," the proper interpretation of the verse could well be "if you don't provide comfort and guidance to your children you must not love them, but if you do love them you will provide these things."

Those two contrasting interpretations lead to very different applications. Personally, I'd argue that the second one is more faithful to the text and relies on exegesis, whereas the first misses the historical and biblical context and is more the product of eisegesis.

Good explanation....

 

[unsafe]

PilgrimsProgress

unsafe says and posted video
Found this to be a good video on Mark1:40-45 ----you can skim through it --it touches on social isolation that the leper experiences ---it gives scripture on how the person was deemed unclean as not all sores were deemed unclean ----The priest was the one who deemed the person unclean or clean it was the law at the time and when Jesus healed the man he was to report to the priest to be deemed clean ----Jesus came to fulfil the law and the first healing of the leper was Jesus fulfilling the law centering around the leper -----Leviticus 13 and Leviticus 14 gives you the guide lines for dealing with lepers ----- lepers had a sense of hopelessness ----there was pain ---isolation ---they had to constantly shout out --unclean ---unclean --which I am sure was very self degrading ----

Leviticus 13 (NKJV)
The Law Concerning Leprosy


Leviticus 14 (NKJV)
The Ritual for Cleansing Healed Lepers

unsafe says ---also posting this short video as it shows the leper finding Jesus so he can be healed ----

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

This is a bit of a side-track -but how much should you consider the congregation you're preaching to?

At the progressive church I still attend at times the congregation is white, middle-class, tertiary educated (except for me and a few others). Many are retired clergy. The theology aspect is central to them.

The mission church where I preach roughly 75% have mental health issues, problems of addiction, homelessness, welfare recipients. They are vulnerable folks - the type of folks who Jesus ministered to. Their focus is not on theology, but on hope and finding spiritual comfort.

I can see the importance of exegesis for both congregations - but application in today's world is what seems to matter in the mission church. They want me to address their own vulnerable lives specifically - and offer them hope in Jesus's message.

For instance, in this particular Biblical passage the fact that Jesus touched the man with leprosy would mean a lot to them. Many don't have physical contact with another all week - and I've noticed that they really welcome a hug from me.
By comparison, in the progressive church many are content just to have a handshake - I guess they have those in their lives who touch them, and thus they have no need of hugs from those in the congregation or clergy?

Can you say something on the different types of congregations, and how that affects your preaching?