Exegesis - Help!

[BetteTheRed]

Oh, dear godde, does that mean you've left us again? Thanks be to godde...

 

[BetteTheRed]

I'm deeply reminded of the poem:

You are old, Father Wiliam,

 

[revsdd]

Actually, Pilgrim "liked" my post on her "help' thread and I expressed my deep respect for Billy Graham.
Like chanson, you substitute a judgmental spirit, while displaying your incompetence to demonstrate your distinction between exegesis eisegesis. I refuted your screed point by point, and you are unable to respond to a single point and instead invoke your version of the academic sin of parallelomania. Bye now!

Are you still here? I thought you were leaving for a few months.

No. I didn't take time to refute you point by point.

First, I don't really buy your academic qualifications as a biblical scholar to make it worth my while to do so. What I've seen of your work suggests to me that you were a scholar of religious literature (particularly John Milton) but I've seen little to indicate your specific expertise in biblical studies. You pontificate and by so doing you think you're making yourself sound impressive (such as by throwing in Sandmel's theory of parallelomania) but I'm unconvinced.

Second, frankly, I was too busy watching the Raptors beat Brooklyn to bother with anything more than a quick response, which is much more important to me than pretty much anything on Wondercafe 2. Tough game, but they pulled out a win with a surge in the 4th quarter. Triple double for Kyle Lowry. Back to a 5 game lead over the Celtics.

As to your last point. I was judgemental by suggesting that you're arrogant and pompous and that a bit of humility would do you well? No. That's not being judgemental. That's being observant. I mean - seriously. You accusing anyone of being judgemental is quite funny.

So here's the deal. You're not really welcome here if all you're going to do every time you show up is trash the site and the moderators and try (unsuccessfully) to demonstrate your superiority over everyone else. So unless you can work on that humility thing I mentioned please make your next absence a very long one.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Actually, Pilgrim "liked" my post on her "help' thread and I expressed my deep respect for Billy Graham.
Like chanson, you substitute a judgmental spirit, while displaying your incompetence to demonstrate your distinction between exegesis eisegesis. I refuted your screed point by point, and you are unable to respond to a single point and instead invoke your version of the academic sin of parallelomania. Bye now!

Yes, I did like your post.......
I liked it because you were trying to be helpful by giving me your thoughts on the text. When you're setting out on theology education, as I am, you are eager to hear many views and opinions.

What I don't find helpful is attacking another on this site. Stand by your opinions if they are important to you, but find a way to do so without humiliating another. revsdd has devoted a lot of his time on this thread -and I appreciate it.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Are you still here? I thought you were leaving for a few months.

As to your last point. I was judgemental by suggesting that you're arrogant and pompous and that a bit of humility would do you well? No. That's not being judgemental. That's being observant. I mean - seriously. You accusing anyone of being judgemental is quite funny.

So here's the deal. You're not really welcome here if all you're going to do every time you show up is trash the site and the moderators and try (unsuccessfully) to demonstrate your superiority over everyone else. So unless you can work on that humility thing I mentioned please make your next absence a very long one.

Sorry, but i.m.o.,revsdd the above is judgemental -saying it's observant sounds more like a "get out of card" jail to me.
(Now I'm being judgemental!)

Why is it that when we say someone is judgmental we invariably mean the other, and ignore the plank in our own eye?
Just look over the posts on this site - judgement abounds.....
That said, when we feel we're being attacked, we often respond. I think it's called human nature.

Seriously, I appreciate you, and others here, for your help in trying to understand so complex a subject (for me) as theology.

 

[revsdd]

Sorry, but i.m.o.,revsdd the above is judgemental -saying it's observant sounds more like a "get out of card" jail to me.
(Now I'm being judgemental!)

Why is it that when we say someone is judgmental we invariably mean the other, and ignore the plank in our own eye?
Just look over the posts on this site - judgement abounds.....
That said, when we feel we're being attacked, we often respond. I think it's called human nature.

Seriously, I appreciate you, and others here, for your help in trying to understand so complex a subject (for me) as theology.

LOL!

Of course I was judging Mystic. That's pretty obvious. I was being sarcastic in what I said - although, my judgement of his character is, in fact, based on my observation of his behaviour.

We make judgements about people all the time. We have to. Most simply and obviously, it's the only way we can decide if we like someone or not. I judge Mystic to be arrogant and pompous - and, frankly, I admit that I don't like him.

And here's another opportunity for exegesis.

There is no biblical injunction against judging people's character on the basis of their actions. So, we could take Matthew 7:1 ("do not judge, or you too will be judged") out of context, or we can put it in context. Just a few verses later, Jesus says "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” We have to use judgement to decide who the "dogs" and "pigs" are in the passage. Both would have been huge insults in Jesus' day and historical context by the way - and he's clearly saying that we should judge that some are dogs and pigs.) A few verses later he says "Watch out for false prophets. . . . By their fruit you will recognize them." Again, we are called to exercise a certain degree of judgement. (I should note by the way that I am not judging Mystic to be a dog, a pig or a false prophet - I'm just dealing with the context of a relevant passage/biblical concept which is often used to shut people up and discourage them from exercising even proper judgement.) To go on. Jesus also says in John 7:24, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly" - which clearly demonstrates that one cannot take Jesus' words "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" as an absolute. Jesus' teaching seems to be, in other words, don't judge by a knee jerk reaction to someone. Judge on the basis of carefully and over time observing their actions and behaviour.

We throw "judgement" around as if it's bad and unbiblical and not Jesus-like. But there is no absolute biblical injunction against "judging." One should not pass judgement on another's eternal destiny - for such judgement belongs to God and God alone. But careful judgements on character and behaviour are necessary for any community to function.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can the rod be used to still free spirits of inquiry?

Gives some resolution of the power of not knowing ... and taken to great polity!

Can tyrants exist without power? Thus humble gods and hypos in the tub ... once called a caldron ... where humans were cleaned up on the night prior to Shabbat times ... a bit ragged? Anybody read Ragged Believers? Is that intellectual or commercial comment ... or can they be clearly disseminated ... by those without the gift of collecting the divine ... an SOB of allegory!

Literary Gemstone?

 

[revsdd]

A little more formal response to Mystic. (By the way, as I look at what Pilgrims Progress wrote, I can assure everyone that Mystic did not succeed in "humiliating" me.)

As I said in an earlier post there is an inevitable amount of eisegesis involved in applying a Scripture or any ancient text to the modern world. So I do not apologize for engaging in some eisegesis in applying "the rod" to today's world. That isn't ironic, as Mystic suggested. It's necessary. The modern world is not the ancient world. Eventually, in applying a text, we have to read the modern world back into the ancient text. Before doing that, we need to understand the ancient text and the images it uses.

The word "rod" in Proverbs 13:24 is the English translation of the Hebrew word "she-bet." "She-bet" literally refers to a stick. It has connotations linking it with a king. It's a symbol of the king's power and authority and responsibilities. It's like a sceptre. In the Bible the primary role of the king is to (1) honour God and (2) care for the people. Kings, in essence, are the shepherds of their people. Kings who abuse the people are frowned upon. And, yes, "she-bet" is also related to the concept of "sabbath" - so there's an implication of rest and peace to the word.

I wouldn't argue with any of the biblical references Mystic cites about the use of the rod. I would argue that they are being taken out of historical and linguistic context. Remember that they are virtually all analogies. The Bible was not written to shepherds - at least not exclusively to shepherds. So the use of a shepherd's tool as an image is an analogy. We have to determine what it means, using the manner in which a shepherd (or a king) would use a rod as a tool.

So, some historic context for the rod. Essentially the rod in ancient times had three purposes. First, it was used to protect the sheep. In that function it was used to beat off predators. The equivalent to the rod in the modern world would probably be a rifle, which would be used to shoot the predators. Obviously it isn't used to shoot the sheep. So the most important use of the rod isn't even applied to the sheep; it's applied against those who would harm the sheep. Thus, "your rod and your staff, they comfort me." They offer comfort because they provide protection. Second, the rod was used to bring sheep who wander back into the fold. Because in Christianity we speak so often of "lost sheep," we think of that as a very common thing. But really it's not. Sheep, by nature, are social animals. They do, indeed, flock together. They like being around each other and around those (including people) that they're familiar with. They don't really wander that often. And when a sheep did wander away for whatever reason, the shepherd would use the rod to gently tap or prod the sheep to get them back to the group. So it was used for correction, but not in a way that would hurt the sheep. The modern equivalent might be a quick slap on the hand. Actually, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its ruling a few years ago on spanking, did a good job of saying that yes, you can spank - but here are the limits. Which was very much in keeping with the biblical and historical use of the rod. Third, the rod was a very practical device used for counting the sheep.

The reason it's important to do a proper analysis of this verse (including exegesis and application) is that it has been used in the past as a justification by those who have in fact beaten their children; those who were guilty of child abuse. Which is not in any way, shape or form how the rod was used on sheep by shepherds. That's why the verses cited by Mystic are accurate enough, but without sufficient historical context.

 

[Jaebius]

A little more formal response to Mystic. (By the way, as I look at what Pilgrims Progress wrote, I can assure everyone that Mystic did not succeed in "humiliating" me.)

As I said in an earlier post there is an inevitable amount of eisegesis involved in applying a Scripture or any ancient text to the modern world. So I do not apologize for engaging in some eisegesis in applying "the rod" to today's world. That isn't ironic, as Mystic suggested. It's necessary. The modern world is not the ancient world. Eventually, in applying a text, we have to read the modern world back into the ancient text. Before doing that, we need to understand the ancient text and the images it uses.

The word "rod" in Proverbs 13:24 is the English translation of the Hebrew word "she-bet." "She-bet" literally refers to a stick. It has connotations linking it with a king. It's a symbol of the king's power and authority and responsibilities. It's like a sceptre. In the Bible the primary role of the king is to (1) honour God and (2) care for the people. Kings, in essence, are the shepherds of their people. Kings who abuse the people are frowned upon. And, yes, "she-bet" is also related to the concept of "sabbath" - so there's an implication of rest and peace to the word.

I wouldn't argue with any of the biblical references Mystic cites about the use of the rod. I would argue that they are being taken out of historical and linguistic context. Remember that they are virtually all analogies. The Bible was not written to shepherds - at least not exclusively to shepherds. So the use of a shepherd's tool as an image is an analogy. We have to determine what it means, using the manner in which a shepherd (or a king) would use a rod as a tool.

So, some historic context for the rod. Essentially the rod in ancient times had three purposes. First, it was used to protect the sheep. In that function it was used to beat off predators. The equivalent to the rod in the modern world would probably be a rifle, which would be used to shoot the predators. Obviously it isn't used to shoot the sheep. So the most important use of the rod isn't even applied to the sheep; it's applied against those who would harm the sheep. Thus, "your rod and your staff, they comfort me." They offer comfort because they provide protection. Second, the rod was used to bring sheep who wander back into the fold. Because in Christianity we speak so often of "lost sheep," we think of that as a very common thing. But really it's not. Sheep, by nature, are social animals. They do, indeed, flock together. They like being around each other and around those (including people) that they're familiar with. They don't really wander that often. And when a sheep did wander away for whatever reason, the shepherd would use the rod to gently tap or prod the sheep to get them back to the group. So it was used for correction, but not in a way that would hurt the sheep. The modern equivalent might be a quick slap on the hand. Actually, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its ruling a few years ago on spanking, did a good job of saying that yes, you can spank - but here are the limits. Which was very much in keeping with the biblical and historical use of the rod. Third, the rod was a very practical device used for counting the sheep.

The reason it's important to do a proper analysis of this verse (including exegesis and application) is that it has been used in the past as a justification by those who have in fact beaten their children; those who were guilty of child abuse. Which is not in any way, shape or form how the rod was used on sheep by shepherds. That's why the verses cited by Mystic are accurate enough, but without sufficient historical context.

Do you feel that it's ever appropriate to use eisegesis when preparing/giving a sermon? This was a question that came up in a UC class I was in a number of years ago. The prof's answer was yes, but in only a few special cases.

 

[Luce NDs]

Do you feel that it's ever appropriate to use eisegesis when preparing/giving a sermon? This was a question that came up in a UC class I was in a number of years ago. The prof's answer was yes, but in only a few special cases.

The congregation must be prepped first due to re-habitual impressions from deep presence (fixation)! Learning and the opposition to it is deeply ingrained ... starts out in Genesis, possibly as Holi satyr ...

 

[revsdd]

Do you feel that it's ever appropriate to use eisegesis when preparing/giving a sermon? This was a question that came up in a UC class I was in a number of years ago. The prof's answer was yes, but in only a few special cases.

As I said, I believe it is impossible to properly apply a biblical text without some degree of eisegesis. First we do exegesis, understand the biblical and historical context of the passage in question and understanding what the passage is trying to say while at the same time trying very hard not to impose a personal agenda on it, but then we must (absolutely must) read the contemporary world back into the text to discern how an ancient text applies to the modern world. Because the modern world is not the ancient world. The historical and geographical contexts are not ours. Most of the Bible would be meaningless without some degree of eisegesis at some point.

 

[revjohn]

By the way, as I look at what Pilgrims Progress wrote, I can assure everyone that Mystic did not succeed in "humiliating" me.

I wasn't concerned. I still remember your hat avatar.

If that isn't humiliation immunity I don't know what is.

 

[Luce NDs]

I wasn't concerned. I still remember your hat avatar.

If that isn't humiliation immunity I don't know what is.

Does android attribute wear a cap in humour ... Irish pub crawler? Go home lad when still standing enough to learn ... then the Jude's marched against the Cana Nights ...

 

[revjohn]

pub crawling never a thing for me. With a full head of hair still hats cause my melon to overheat rapidly.

 

[Luce NDs]

pub crawling never a thing for me. With a full head of hair still hats cause my melon to overheat rapidly.

Yet still raises a sense of humour about excess amounts ... or even excess deficits ... mediums are still psychically despised ...

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

I'm starting to think about the sermon I have to give with this Bible passage.......
In view of my congregation (we have been told it must be relevant for them) I'm going to have as a central theme Insiders/Outsiders.

Have you ever been an outsider in a community?
If so, did it change how you related to outsiders?

 

[Luce NDs]

I'm starting to think about the sermon I have to give with this Bible passage.......
In view of my congregation (we have been told it must be relevant for them) I'm going to have as a central theme Insiders/Outsiders.

Have you ever been an outsider in a community?
If so, did it change how you related to outsiders?

Having been considered and outcast (single parent child in a Fundy BS) ... I've always been condemned as not into conformation (impossible with the given circumstances)? Thus I have generally always been empathetic to most all fringe people ... even the POTUS as I feel sorry for what's missing there ... is that the devil's advocate perspective ... sort of twisted out of shape for the conformist that hate the mission style dance ...

This often leads to development of psychopathological behaviours ... I have had the strength to escape the trials and tribulations of such PTSD and study it from beyond ... so as to not get into a brutal sense of passions ... runs parallel to the Roman Circus ... etude from a' farce Ide ... out-there!

I see in this morning obits we lost another young person to (I would estimate) martyrdom ... to soften the word for escape syndrome from a cruel domain ... the image of Steve McQueen on a motorcycle catches the lens of my mind ... or perhaps Lawrence of Arabia ... when it comes out in the wash ... madness is endemic ... loss of something unspeakable (that deep dark allegorical thingy of non-sense to allows breaks from reality ... the ineffable sub-con science)! You can't follow the heart mindlessly with one ... a complex enigma to say least ... a prodigal loan-Eire! Just for Lent ... thus wee shares! Tis a humble little thingy ... untouchable due to in fini TY ... ends when vaporized ... ethereal connections?

Don't go the steamed route ... or you'll blow it ... a sloe and patient rendering ... allowing unraveling of the redaction!

 

[revjohn]

I'm starting to think about the sermon I have to give with this Bible passage.......
In view of my congregation (we have been told it must be relevant for them) I'm going to have as a central theme Insiders/Outsiders.

Not entirely sure that the text speaks to insiders/outsiders.

For the sake of discussion

Have you ever been an outsider in a community?

Sure. As a member of The United Church of Canada I was very much an outsider when I arrived at Redeemer University College to begin work on my undergrad in the fall of 1988. Repeated that from the other side of the theological spectrum when I first arrived at the Vancouver School of Theology.

At Redeemer I was presumed to be exceedingly liberal because of my denominational affiliation. At VST I was presumed to be exceedingly conservative because of the Christian Reformed influence of my undergraduate studies.

Time spent at both institution was revealing.

The first thing that needed to be established was agency. I speak for myself and only for myself. My denomination or institutional affiliations only speak for me with respect to my membership/participation in them, apart from that I weight the conversations as I weight them and arrive at the conclusions I arrive at.

Once the communities accepted that I was not a stereotypical liberal or conservative they were forced to build an understanding of who John is based on what John said, did and thought.

While Redeemer was incredibly hospitable to me as an institution (Administration and Faculty particularly) so it took some time for the student body to overcome their distrust of me as other. Redeemer demonstrated that I was welcome, I could become a part but so long as I remained with the United Church I would never be considered one of them.

Save for Alumni fundraising drives. My money is good no matter which denomination I belong to.

And to be fair, the friendships I built at Redeemer and the respect I earned at Redeemer still stand. Redeemer grows and changes and eventually there will be no institutional memory that I ever belonged outside of the Alumni fundraisers.

I accept that and am okay with that. I paid tuition. Redeemer provided me with an education that has stood me in good stead vocation wise. It also gave me friends outside of the United Church whom I can rely on to challenge me in ways my denomination won't.

At the end of the day. It was a school and both of us met the expectations we had of one another.

VST was a little different because on one level it was me not being trusted by my own. Initially.

Just as with Redeemer VST as an institution was incredibly hospitable. The Admin and the Faculty were very accommodating and interested in my story and how I found myself on their door-step. The students took some time to overcome their distrust and I have to say that at VST I had active support in that from the Faculty. Particularly when the conflict became obvious in the classroom.

It helped that both time I was aware of the preconceptions and the stereotypes attached to them. Knowing to avoid fulfilling those stereotypes at all costs helped me to make forward progress with my classmates, even when there was a strong difference of opinion.

If so, did it change how you related to outsiders?

I can't say that it has. I allow people to speak for themselves. Their words and their actions and the consistency that exists between both are what I use to evaluate the character of the other. I am not concerned with disagreement if it is honest disagreement. If somebody is trying to jerk my chain I'm not interested in being somebody else's plaything. I push and probe the stranger as much as I do my friends. It really is the only way to find out the difference between who is stranger and who is a friend.

So, with respect to insider and outsider I wonder who, in the context of the pericope (Mark 1: 40-45) is the insider and who is the outsider.

One could make an argument that the leper is the outsider based on the fact that his skin disease made him an outcast.

Looking at the conversation with Jesus I see that both exercise agency of their own. The leper begs to be healed and Jesus complies. Jesus asks for silence in return and the leper refuses to honour that request. I suspect it is easy to dismiss that as pure exhuberance on the part of the leper at being restored.

Save for the fact that Jesus' request would have cost him nothing to honour and if he was grateful to Jesus then you would think the least he would give to Jesus by way of gratitude would be that asked for silence.

But Jesus gets nothing from the exchange, certainly nothing he apparently wanted.

Jesus remains an outsider and the leper effectively thwarts his desire to come inside on his own terms.

I wonder, in a community with such a depth of experience of mental health issues if any have ever had difficulty with their own agency being denied them.

And what does it say about our relationships/communities when the streets that criss-cross them are not two way streets?

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

revjohn, I'm not a Calvinist - so I don't think my sermon will meet with your approval -and probably not just because I'm not a Calvinist!......

But that's okay, as it will make a lot of sense to the congregation at our mission church - many of whom have first-hand experience of the life of an outsider.

I admit exegesis difficult for me, but I think I can make a credible connection between the Biblical text and my sermon theme. (Also, we're limited to ten minutes -so I have to make choices of what to include and exclude.)

Due to my personal battles with anxiety I'm not comfortable with just relying on notes -but have to read out the sermon.
I've noticed that the minister at the progressive church I still attend reads her sermons - but she seems to be able to look at the congregation frequently.

Any advice from those who read their sermons on how to engage with the congregation as one reads?

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

revjohn, seems from the example you mentioned - that the perceived differences in theology were part of your insider/outsider scenario?

I've often thought here in Wondercafe that differences in theology play too much a part of conflict. Seems we all cling to our own particular theology -and criticise the others. (That said, I know Process Theology is the right theology. )