Exegesis - Help!

[BetteTheRed]

I got very connected to "skin disease" yesterday. Went to see my nurse-practitioner about a wyrd thing on my hand yesterday. In the process, we had a funny and frank discussion about modern Ontario medical reactions to "skin that isn't behaving well":

i) steroid cream
ii) anti-fungal cream
iii) a combo of i) and ii)
iv), in some cases, liquid nitrogen

If none of the above seem to have any on-going success, one refers to a dermatologist, most of whom do "cosmetic stuff" as their major breadwinning, so getting in to see them, and having any kind of priority with paying patients is a bit dicey. Do not have skin difficulties in Ontario; don't suppose anywhere else is any better. My last permanent dermatologist lost his license over sexual assault charges. (I have always on-going skin stuff; do not be born an ezcemic, asthmatic, allergic baby with a further history of skin stuff, plus a childhood of "redhead burns"; we (my n-p, doc and I) have not yet got to the point of trying to find me another.)

 

[Jaebius]

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?

The type of congregation should absolutely affect your preaching.

Some questions I feel worth considering come from Stephen Ferris' book, "Preaching That Matters: The Bible and Our Lives"...

"EXEGESIS OF THE SITUATION
1. Name of institution
2. Type of institution
3. Social and economic makeup of the audience/congregation
4. Social and economic makeup of the surrounding community
5. Age of listeners (rough numbers and % of whole)
6. Gender (%)
7. Educational background (highest level attained, % of whole)
8. In what people or structures does the power lie in this situation?
9. What are the special ideological/theological, or other emphases, if any, of this institution?
10. What issues or circumstances are temporarily of special concern to the people of this institution?
11. What special factors of institutional history might affect the congregation's ability to hear you?
12. Describe the worship style of this congregation or other setting.
13. What expectations of the minister do the people bring with them?
14. What expectations do people have with respect to the sermon?
15. What will the people have difficulty hearing from you?
16. What have the people learned well?
17. What do the people need to learn?
18. In their free time the people of this institution - like to watch: - like to read: - like to listen to:
19. This congregation understands the Bible to be:
20. What hopes or expectations does this group have for the future?"

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

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

Thanks, unsafe -I don't have time now to view the long video - but I enjoyed the short video.

It illustrated the reading well. I enjoyed the paraphrasing of the disciples "There' no two ways about it -we must get the master away from here."

 

[ChemGal]

I got very connected to "skin disease" yesterday. Went to see my nurse-practitioner about a wyrd thing on my hand yesterday. In the process, we had a funny and frank discussion about modern Ontario medical reactions to "skin that isn't behaving well":

i) steroid cream
ii) anti-fungal cream
iii) a combo of i) and ii)
iv), in some cases, liquid nitrogen

If none of the above seem to have any on-going success, one refers to a dermatologist, most of whom do "cosmetic stuff" as their major breadwinning, so getting in to see them, and having any kind of priority with paying patients is a bit dicey. Do not have skin difficulties in Ontario; don't suppose anywhere else is any better. My last permanent dermatologist lost his license over sexual assault charges. (I have always on-going skin stuff; do not be born an ezcemic, asthmatic, allergic baby with a further history of skin stuff, plus a childhood of "redhead burns"; we (my n-p, doc and I) have not yet got to the point of trying to find me another.)

Actually here they are one of the specialists most easy to see. I find all the cosmetic stuff has actually helped with that.
Sorry off topic Pilgrim, was just interested in reading along until this.

 

[paradox3]

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 example, thank you. But I am still wondering about some approaches to bible study which seem to focus more on personal reflection/ reactions to the text . . .what about lection divina?

A simple definition of the process . . . lectio divina is broken down into the following steps named in Latin: Lectio (reading),; Meditatio (meditation),; Oratio (prayer),; and Contemplatio (contemplation). Then, as a result of the encounter with God in Scripture, we are also called to Actio (action)

Where does exegesis fit in? Is it part of the contemplation step?

 

[revsdd]

Good example, thank you. But I am still wondering about some approaches to bible study which seem to focus more on personal reflection/ reactions to the text . . .what about lection divina?

A simple definition of the process . . . lectio divina is broken down into the following steps named in Latin: Lectio (reading),; Meditatio (meditation),; Oratio (prayer),; and Contemplatio (contemplation). Then, as a result of the encounter with God in Scripture, we are also called to Actio (action)

Where does exegesis fit in? Is it part of the contemplation step?

The "exegesis" part of Lectio Divina should ideally be all of reading, meditation, prayer and contemplation. Lectio Divina really doesn't work unless one tries as best as one can to let go of presuppositions about the text and personal biases/agendas in order to allow the Holy Spirit to guide the process of understanding and ultimately applying the text - just as one should do in a more formal "academic" type of exegesis.

 

[Luce NDs]

Good example, thank you. But I am still wondering about some approaches to bible study which seem to focus more on personal reflection/ reactions to the text . . .what about lection divina?

A simple definition of the process . . . lectio divina is broken down into the following steps named in Latin: Lectio (reading),; Meditatio (meditation),; Oratio (prayer),; and Contemplatio (contemplation). Then, as a result of the encounter with God in Scripture, we are also called to Actio (action)

Where does exegesis fit in? Is it part of the contemplation step?

Do many master dislike being removed from the position of belief ... when the general population sees that they really don't know much about the Master Mind in the BS position? Much of this appears as beyond the normal isolated person that fails to connect because of widespread authority of what is out there an ... well ... just unknown to please those that don't like bad news ... and thus form the dark area of the mind we call occult. Tis something to look into through etude ... like the difficulties of PTSD ... that are obvious to some weird psyches! Making war on you neighbours when the big rod should have been utilized in more genteel nature than as Jude did to the light ... causing burial in the entombed text! The Jude means so many things to Jude 'n and other perspectives of a multifaceted human psyche that authorities wish didn't exist as it interferes with free wile ... thank all that is out there for exceptions ... some better to learn from as we see the cracks in definitive belief in something of eternal mystery ... really far out ... as paranormal hints at ... then is life particularly peculiar?

 

[Luce NDs]

The "exegesis" part of Lectio Divina should ideally be all of reading, meditation, prayer and contemplation. Lectio Divina really doesn't work unless one tries as best as one can to let go of presuppositions about the text and personal biases/agendas in order to allow the Holy Spirit to guide the process of understanding and ultimately applying the text - just as one should do in a more formal "academic" type of exegesis.

That does fix the indeterminate ... right? Some perceive this as blind institutionalism as portrayed in many dharma's ... and dramas as the greater story plays out ... beyond (para) what is normally accepted as firm in a vast spread of cos Mo' logic vision ... accept that cosmos once had to do with a soul with vast capacity to know itself ... bit by chit (a metaphor, as enigma to entertain the larger spread)! God's*ole, or God's oil? The dirt as scattered on the great mystery (AD) overhead?

It is said to be inclusive of approximately 90% dark matter and energy (immaterial drivers)? One really has to step back a bit to envision this like Ba'aL meme's ass as a smart carrier ... that conflicts with the greatest desires ...

Perhaps a mental conflict with institutional psyche ... thus some things become unhinged in this old house ... only then is one free to meditate (word with vast variation of understanding). Something else to collect?

 

[paradox3]

The "exegesis" part of Lectio Divina should ideally be all of reading, meditation, prayer and contemplation. Lectio Divina really doesn't work unless one tries as best as one can to let go of presuppositions about the text and personal biases/agendas in order to allow the Holy Spirit to guide the process of understanding and ultimately applying the text - just as one should do in a more formal "academic" type of exegesis.

For simplicity's sake, here is a Wiki definition of exegesis: Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type of literary genres presented in the text and analysis of grammatical and syntacticalfeatures in the text itself.

I am struggling to understand how we would incorporate all of this into the steps of Lection Divina . . . can you explain further?

 

[Luce NDs]

For simplicity's sake, here is a Wiki definition of exegesis: Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type of literary genres presented in the text and analysis of grammatical and syntacticalfeatures in the text itself.

I am struggling to understand how we would incorporate all of this into the steps of Lection Divina . . . can you explain further?

Would this include critical thought .. or crisis in the fixed mind as stoned in place ... can't process incoming unknowns?

 

[revsdd]

For simplicity's sake, here is a Wiki definition of exegesis: Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type of literary genres presented in the text and analysis of grammatical and syntacticalfeatures in the text itself.

I am struggling to understand how we would incorporate all of this into the steps of Lection Divina . . . can you explain further?

Bluntly I think the "Wiki" definition is wrong, or at least insufficient. From my perspective "Wiki" is making a much too narrow and "academic" definition of "exegesis." I can buy that "Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines ..." but in my opinion exegesis is not restricted to a wide range of critical disciplines. Exegesis means taking out of the text. It means approaching a text with an open mind and letting the text speak for itself rather than imposing my presuppositions upon the text. In spiritual terms, one can "do" exegesis with only the Holy Spirit as guide.

When I first analyze a text for preaching purposes I follow a sort of personalized lectio divina approach - although it's focussed on writing. I start by writing the text out (not on the keyboard, but by hand.) I find this helps me focus on what's in the text more than just reading it to myself. So writing it out is my version of "read." I then (without any research) write about the text. Sometimes it's a page or more, other times it's three or four lines. It's whatever the Holy Spirit puts into my head. That brings into my mind questions, things I haven't noticed before, and a general "leading" into what I think my focus should be when applying the text. That's my version of "meditate." I then pray about the text and what I have written - usually at least once every day as I go back to the text and the process of sermon writing up to and including the Sunday morning in church. I pray out loud right before I preach - generally more than just the old stand by "may the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts ..." (although I may end with those words.) For me, contemplation would probably include the research/study part of preparing the sermon and where that leads me - because I think the Holy Spirit also guides that process. All this - for me - is exegesis. It's an effort to shut out what I already think and to allow the text to guide my thoughts. Sometimes nothing surprising happens. The text says basically what I thought it said. Sometimes I get surprised.

 

[paradox3]

Thanks @revsdd. Your sermon writing approach is very similar to the process Walter Wink recommends for "transforming" bible study.

He advocates first reading/ meditating on the text and outlining potential questions. A good question, he says, is one that we ourselves can answer in more than one way. At this point, and only now, the bible study leader is free to examine commentaries and so on. Such consultation usually leads to further refinement of the questions.

In the bible study itself, we would read the text several times, pray for understanding & work our way through the previously prepared questions. When I was facilitating I would always come prepared with ten "good" questions but not necessarily need to use them all. The final part of the session would be an "application" exercise. Perhaps drawing, writing a prayer or poem. etc.

I got more out of the bible study by facilitating than by just being a participant. (We rotated the facilitatorship of the group.) Maybe because I was missing the step of consultation with commentary.

I have been to other bible studies that are more "academic" in their approach. Somehow I think an interweaving of the two styles might be best.

Thanks again for your response. Interesting discussion.

 

[revjohn]

With revsdd, exegesis is simply listening to what the text says.

When it says such and such happened we allow such and such has happened.

Textual criticism comes into play when textual variants exist. Such as in Mark 1: 41. Until we decide which variant we are going to judge to be most authentic we have two versions that need to be heard.

Genre criticism may influence how we are meant to hear it. It doesn't change that the text says X.

At most, genre criticism protects against simple literalism and recognizes that scripture is literary effort. We still listen to what it says.

Interpretation/application always follow and arguments can be made as to how closely one's interpretation/application follows exegesis. The goal is to listen to what the text is saying.

Which is not easy when we tend to approach scripture with our own presuppositions.

For the most part I think we are capable, if not enthusiastic about doing so, of letting others speak for themselves in conversation so there should be little impediment to extending that courtesy to scrpture.

Having heard we then embark on the journey of understanding and that is where critical interpretation tools may be of assistance.

 

[unsafe]

PilgrimsProgress ---your quote -----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.

My View
unsafe says ---I think an understanding of where spiritual comfort comes from is very important here -----true spiritual comfort will only come from God not mankind ---we humans can offer comfort to a point to the venerable but will it last ---that is the thing -----Spiritual comfort is a heart issue ---- Also understanding True Spiritual Compassion is also important -----we can show worldly compassion but true spiritual compassion comes by having the Holy Spirit in us ---


unsafe says ---and posted definition
I think you have the wrong Idea about why Jesus came -----Jesus came to show us that we are to show compassion to the poor --opressed--Help the poor and encourage and inspire the poor but -----But His Purpose was that He was sent by His Father to Preach the Good News to the Spiritually poor which is all people as we are all sinners and he came to Liberate us -----

liberate means --- set (someone) free from a situation, especially imprisonment or slavery, in which their liberty is severely restricted. And ---release (someone) from a state or situation that limits freedom of thought or behavior.


Only Jesus can liberate us -----

We are to show compassion and help the poor --we are to inspire them with our words of hope -----and encourage them to know that God loves them as they are and God is always available to them even through they may feel they are unworthy of God's love it is forever present in their lives always touching them and hoping that they will respond to His touch -----God is always pulling on them to come into His presents but it is their choice to do so --Jesus didn't heal many because of their unbelief ----We can't make the Addict ---The unemployed --The mentally handicapped believe that Jesus Loves them and is touching them every day to come to Him -----all we can do is encourage it and keep the Faith ourselves by and through Prayer that their hearts will be touched by God and hope that eventually they will get to a point that they can believe that they are surrounded by God's Love and Grace -----


unsafe says and posted Greek word and Mark 26 :11----------Jesus said this -----in Mark 26:11 ---the poor you will always have with you -----

Poor here in the Greek means this ----
4434. ptóchos ►
Strong's Concordance
ptóchos: (of one who crouches and cowers, hence) beggarly, poor
Definition: poor, destitute, spiritually poor, either in a good sense (humble devout persons) or bad.


unsafe posted scripture

Luke 4:14-19 (CEB)
Jesus announces good news to the poor
14 Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news about him spread throughout the whole countryside. 15 He taught in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.

16 Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been raised. On the Sabbath he went to the synagogue as he normally did and stood up to read. 17 The synagogue assistant gave him the scroll from the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
He has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,
19 and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.


unsafe says and posted scripture ----we are to include the poor

Luke 14:12-14 (CSB)
12 He also said to the one who had invited him, “When you give a lunch or a dinner, don’t invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. 13 On the contrary, when you host a banquet, invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, or blind. 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”


unsafe says and posted Article -------Inspiring story here if you care to read it -----

Romal Tune | HuffPostdoes-jesus-heal-drug-addi_b_4746748.html
Does Jesus Heal Drug Addicts? I Almost Gave Up on My Drug-addict Mother, But Then I Discovered That God Never Gives Up


unsafe says and posted scripture

Have a look at the woman at the well -----she was an outcast ---Jesus Preached the Good News to Her -----He didn't hug her or coddle her -He told her the word ---John 4 GW -----10 Jesus replied to her, “If you only knew what God’s gift is and who is asking you for a drink, you would have asked him for a drink. He would have given you living water.”


Jesus showed Compassion to the women just by talking to Her and taking the time to preach the word to her in my opinion -------she was inspired and excited and told people -----

The Leper is the same Jesus didn't coddle the man or hug him--He simply touched him -----and this is the same today ---God is always trying to touch us with His Love but we have to be receptive to it for it to be of benefit -----only the person themselves can do that --all we can do is encourage them to enter into His Love baggage and all ---

unsafe says ----You have an advantage with your group ---you say you have walked the walk so you have an understanding of their oppression --what greater comfort can you give them than that -----

Good Luck with your sermon

 

[Luce NDs]

Is this topic of contrary items pure ... cognitive dissonance ... a just conflict of what you want to see and what your would rather not see ... and thus eliminatory visions ... these would allow the denial of bad news and support great news ... no poor spirits allowed ...

Can cause fulminating or fermenting fields (pastures) in reality ...

One may be allowed to regress into the soul of God as when approaching the terminal of the railway to heaven at great speed ... slow down and meditate on the rush ... could be a satyr! Did you know the relationship between satyrs and Lilith? Tis significantly ... mythological in many views ...

 

[paradox3]

With revsdd, exegesis is simply listening to what the text says.

Okay. So exegesis is listening to what the text says through a variety of methods? Study, prayer, discernment, etc? Discussion with others and being open to the Holy Spirit?

How do we define hermeneutics, then? (Spellcheck is offering me therapeutics here, ha ha.)

Exegesis is often contrasted with eisegesis. Does this simply mean not getting beyond our biases and preconceived ideas?

 

[revsdd]

Okay. So exegesis is listening to what the text says through a variety of methods? Study, prayer, discernment, etc? Discussion with others and being open to the Holy Spirit?

How do we define hermeneutics, then? (Spellcheck is offering me therapeutics here, ha ha.)

Exegesis is often contrasted with eisegesis. Does this simply mean not getting beyond our biases and preconceived ideas?

Hermeneutics basically means the field of interpretation.

Exegesis would be one type of hermeneutic. Eisegesis would also be a type of hermeneutic. Am I a literalist? That's a hermeneutic. Basically, whatever method you approach a text with to interpret it is your hermeneutic.

My interpretation of a text is influenced by the hermeneutic that I approach it with.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but for now I'm trying to finish off a sermon for Sunday.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

@ paradox3 - thanks for helping me with clarification of the Biblical terms. I appreciate your imput........

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

When I first analyze a text for preaching purposes I follow a sort of personalized lectio divina approach - although it's focussed on writing. I start by writing the text out (not on the keyboard, but by hand.) I find this helps me focus on what's in the text more than just reading it to myself. So writing it out is my version of "read." I then (without any research) write about the text. Sometimes it's a page or more, other times it's three or four lines. It's whatever the Holy Spirit puts into my head. That brings into my mind questions, things I haven't noticed before, and a general "leading" into what I think my focus should be when applying the text. That's my version of "meditate." I then pray about the text and what I have written - usually at least once every day as I go back to the text and the process of sermon writing up to and including the Sunday morning in church. I pray out loud right before I preach - generally more than just the old stand by "may the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts ..." (although I may end with those words.) For me, contemplation would probably include the research/study part of preparing the sermon and where that leads me - because I think the Holy Spirit also guides that process. All this - for me - is exegesis. It's an effort to shut out what I already think and to allow the text to guide my thoughts. Sometimes nothing surprising happens. The text says basically what I thought it said. Sometimes I get surprised.

Thank you for this practical approach to exegesis - you've given me an understanding how to actually do it......

Just curious about the bit about the Holy Spirit - how do you know it's the Spirit and not your own thoughts?

Also, I'm wondering about the personal theology of the minister/pastor - does that influence the exegesis? How can you be sure it's what God means?
I remember somewhere revjohn mentioning that he was a Calvinist - what would you say you are, theologically?

 

[paradox3]

Also, I'm wondering about the personal theology of the minister/pastor - does that influence the exegesis? How can you be sure it's what God means?

Glad you asked this. I have been wondering myself if exegesis in its purest form is even possible. . . could it be more of an ideal than a reality?

Great conversation.