Exegesis - Help!

[paradox3]

I remember somewhere revjohn mentioning that he was a Calvinist - what would you say you are, theologically?

I say that @revsdd is a traditionalist with a fairly high Christology. More of a progressive when it comes to social issues.

 

[revjohn]

Okay. So exegesis is listening to what the text says through a variety of methods?

It can be.

If EZed were here he would appeal to Ricour's work around first and second naivete.

Study, prayer, discernment, etc?

All three would hopefully position us to a listening stance.

Discussion with others and being open to the Holy Spirit?

Also helpful.

How do we define hermeneutics, then?

I run with interpretation. So the process from start to finish is:

A) listen to the text ( pay attention to possible textual variations and read a variety of translations to identify possible meanings that may or may not influence the reading.

B) approach text with critical tools which may shape what has been heard. Genre of text can tell us what we should be looking for. This is interpretation work. It builds off of what is heard.

C) share the message of the text. This is the exposition piece and the area where homiletics takes charge.

(Spellcheck is offering me therapeutics here, ha ha.)

Some days they get very close to one another.

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

In part. It runs very close to prooftexting which is what happens when I have an idea and I force scripture to confirm my idea.

 

[revsdd]

I say that @revsdd is a traditionalist with a fairly high Christology. More of a progressive when it comes to social issues.

Interesting. I'm not sure what a "traditionalist" is.

There are aspects of Calvinism that I admire (particularly its emphasis on the absolute sovereignty of God.) But I do not call myself a Calvinist. I sometimes refer to myself as a quasi-universalist in that I accept universal salvation as a possibility, although I am not convinced of it. But I do see both logic in and scriptural support for an unlimited atonement, as opposed to the limited atonement that Calvinism proposes. So, to stick with Calvinist terms, I believe that it's possible that all could be "the elect." That is for God to decide. My role is to proclaim assurance of salvation in Christ - a part of what paradox3 refers to (correctly) as my high christology. As for social issues, yes I would probably be on the progressive side.

 

[revsdd]

Now, to the rest of the post from Pilgrims Progress

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?

How does one "know" that it's the Spirit rather than oneself? Good question. Hard to answer. I trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the process. I accepts that I am capable of error. I depend on God's grace that if I am wrong I will be forgiven.

The preacher's personal theology clearly influences exegesis, although exegesis can also influence the preacher's personal theology. I am not (theologically) the same preacher I was 20 years ago. That is the result of engagement with Scripture and the Holy Spirit. As we engage, we are transformed in our understanding.

Unsatisfactory late night answers, I agree - but it is difficult to be specific on the question of the working of God's Spirit. As Jesus said, the Spirit is like the wind. You see the effect, but you don't see the wind itself. So it is with God's Spirit.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

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.

You can depend on an Aussie to ask the hard questions!

 

[Waterfall]

I'm wondering, does exegesis then become a form of literalism and is this the way the Bible was intended to be read? Can/should this method be used on scripture that is clearly metaphor or allegory?

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Now, to the rest of the post from Pilgrims Progress



How does one "know" that it's the Spirit rather than oneself? Good question. Hard to answer. I trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the process. I accepts that I am capable of error. I depend on God's grace that if I am wrong I will be forgiven.

The preacher's personal theology clearly influences exegesis, although exegesis can also influence the preacher's personal theology. I am not (theologically) the same preacher I was 20 years ago. That is the result of engagement with Scripture and the Holy Spirit. As we engage, we are transformed in our understanding.

Unsatisfactory late night answers, I agree - but it is difficult to be specific on the question of the working of God's Spirit. As Jesus said, the Spirit is like the wind. You see the effect, but you don't see the wind itself. So it is with God's Spirit.

Not a bad answer.......
Interesting comment about not being the same preacher you were 20 years ago. Transformation is an ongoing process?

 

[Luce NDs]

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.

Perhaps just a quirk of psychic nature ... but some don't believe in soul due to the great rush to preserve it ... thus the salting ... discovered by the Egyptians ... for reticent ide-ars? People will express emotions right on the face ... but thoughts run deeper ... a' sad commentary on our isolated state ... Dick's ease? The seed of discontent if you didn't get it?

 

[Luce NDs]

I'm wondering, does exegesis then become a form of literalism and is this the way the Bible was intended to be read? Can/should this method be used on scripture that is clearly metaphor or allegory?

That couldn't be could it ... would cause disruption within the literalist sectarians ...

 

[Luce NDs]

All three would hopefully position us to a listening stance.

And form triangulation to see what comes forth? A devil of a thought given the Roman trend to cuss thinking men as dangerous ... thus the cutting of the tree of knowledge ... and the edge passes ... like a mythical scythe of the lady in dark ...

Previous ideas imbedded now remain in the dark past immaterial domain ... in essence ... metaphorical spirit of the ghost of thought. However materialists of sooth don't believe the essence of it ...

Then there are the ghosts of Juda, Reuben, Ephraim ... and the forth coming Dan ... cursed cognizance of another yet to come ... curios or with great interest to our mistakes and books ...

Not a topic for the greatest who have never Welshed on Eire ... (poorly understood expression of mean Pixies)! Could be powerful if you sense pistis ... upon Sophia, is that you? Uranus ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Now, to the rest of the post from Pilgrims Progress



How does one "know" that it's the Spirit rather than oneself? Good question. Hard to answer. I trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the process. I accepts that I am capable of error. I depend on God's grace that if I am wrong I will be forgiven.

The preacher's personal theology clearly influences exegesis, although exegesis can also influence the preacher's personal theology. I am not (theologically) the same preacher I was 20 years ago. That is the result of engagement with Scripture and the Holy Spirit. As we engage, we are transformed in our understanding.

Unsatisfactory late night answers, I agree - but it is difficult to be specific on the question of the working of God's Spirit. As Jesus said, the Spirit is like the wind. You see the effect, but you don't see the wind itself. So it is with God's Spirit.

Alas the institution can sometimes be so determinate about what light they see in a large dark expanse of eternal soul ... God soul? The spirit of soul is a genre that some people just tossed out the windows of heaven ... as perhaps seminal !

From Wiki 'd sources of info and lighter intelligence: (of a work, event, moment, or figure) strongly influencing later developments.
"his seminal work on chaos theory"
synonyms: influential, formative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original, innovative; More
major, important
"her paper is a seminal work on the subject"

• 2.
  relating to or denoting semen.
  synonyms: influential, formative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original, innovative;

• Some determined literalists will say anything more than what they know is sinful (a pain, yes, but sinful ... only if you wish to stifle the spread of knowledgeable cares)! In the past that was Annah, An, or the remnants of that sly Lilith ... as myth! Almost serpentine ... green, flowing sometime pooling up in the hills and vales! Vegetative waves ...

There's more even ... hidden in the genre of myth so those that don't wish the known ... won't know it ... the (psyche) essence can stand stress better than the body ... then of course if you don't believe in soul ... perhaps you lost it ... some of us pick up on the misplaced, cursed, denied, and eliminated ... even amines are good for rebuilding genes ... acrylics and acronyms are good for the surrounding mitochondrial structure ... the innate side one should know! Tis lost medi Sine ... sine qua non! Without it you are nothing ... some doctoring may be beneficial for the fixated ... edifices?

 

[Mendalla]

I'm wondering, does exegesis then become a form of literalism and is this the way the Bible was intended to be read? Can/should this method be used on scripture that is clearly metaphor or allegory?

If the scripture in question is clearly metaphorical, then reading it that way would be exegesis. However, metaphors do have meaning in their cultural and literary context so exegesis would be trying to find that rather than reading in whatever position you are bringing to the table.

 

[Luce NDs]

If the scripture in question is clearly metaphorical, then reading it that way would be exegesis. However, metaphors do have meaning in their cultural and literary context so exegesis would be trying to find that rather than reading in whatever position you are bringing to the table.

Is it possible that some entities cannot read metaphorical literature?

They may sense metaphors are the children of satyr ... de via ates?

 

[unsafe]

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

unsafe says ----and posted scripture in a couple of places
I can only answer for me ---but this is a great question and is not talked about or preached on in my view ------

There are scripture that clearly speak Spiritually for themselves like 2 Tim 3:16 --All Scripture is God Breathed ------it then becomes all about our belief in what it says ----we either believe scripture is God breathed or we don't ------you can't half believe this statement there is no inbetween -----


This scripture is hard for mankind to understand -------Luke 18:25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom.”

Most people believe that this is all about riches keeping you out of Heaven -----many believed that the camel could get through the small passage if they unloaded their belongings from the camel -----many thought that there was an actual gate called the eye of the needle ----etc -

I was so puzzled by this passage myself that one day I was reading this passage and I prayed to have a Spiritual Revelation of what this passage was Spiritually saying to me ------

This is what was reveled to me by and through the Holy Spirit ----- The passage is not about the rich or the camel going through the eye of the needle ----the message is this ----Jesus is the eye of the needle ---the narrow Gate which through all can enter if they wish ----the way is narrow and no matter what the size of the person or their status on this earth if they go through Jesus who is the gate they will be received in God's Kingdom ----All who Love God will put God first in their lives and will do His will not their will ---It is about who you serve this world or God's Kingdom ----Jesus is the Gate but few will enter ----


This was for me the greatest Revelation and made perfect sense to me and still does ----and there is an inner witnessing that happens when you receive the revelation from the Holy Spirit and you know in your knower ---your inner self that this is right for you ------you have a piece and a joy that is unmistakeable in your inner being ------

All Glory is God's for the above revelation to me ------


The Bible will always have the Spiritual message in the words presented -----and the Holy Spirit will never ---never --never ---veer from God's Word or Will when giving a revelation to the person or when the person is preaching to a church -----


No Seminary school will ever give you the real Spiritual Meaning of the Scripture -----only the Holy Spirit can do that ----- The Holy Spirit knows where the person is in their Faith walk with Christ and the Holy Spirit will give the person the right spiritual sound interpretation for where that person is in their Faith walk with Christ -----As we grow in our Faith Walk by being in the scriptures often and ask for knowledge and wisdom we get more and more revealed to us by and through the Holy Spirit ---


unsafe says
That is why revsdd said -----His quote from above --------I am not (theologically) the same preacher I was 20 years ago. That is the result of engagement with Scripture and the Holy Spirit. As we engage, we are transformed in our understanding.


unsafe says ---we have to be hungry and thirsty for learning more and more and God responds as He knows who has a sincere heart and who doesn't

 

[Luce NDs]

"Hard to understand" @unsafe ... just image a squeeze ... once crushed by unbelievable powers you can be poured through the hole ... religion did that during inquisitions and drawing and quartering to break body and soul! Modern religion is brute ... look at the bullying and force dealt out to succeed ... succession duty?

One must experience extreme belittling ... denial and elimination to be truly pistis Sophia ... depressing as the Saint Niche they hide in ... regression? Thus adepts and Satyrs ... obscure as imagined ... occult?

Totally lacking empathy ... can you guess the reason?

 

[Waterfall]

If the scripture in question is clearly metaphorical, then reading it that way would be exegesis. However, metaphors do have meaning in their cultural and literary context so exegesis would be trying to find that rather than reading in whatever position you are bringing to the table.

And the first line? It's been my understanding that reading the Bible literally is a fairly new phenomenon?

 

[Mendalla]

And the first line? It's been my understanding that reading the Bible literally is a fairly new phenomenon?

Define "literally". In the modern fundamentalist sense, sure. But I think a lot of Christians over the years have thought they were reading the Bible "literally" even if they weren't fundamentalists. And I did answer your first line by suggesting that exegesis need not be literal, just what the text requires.

 

[Mystic]

@revsdd : "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."

I initially decided to let this post go unchallenged because of the common modern abuse of this text and because the lack of board moderation here prevents me from constructive engagement in threads, but I have decided to respond to you, Steve, because your interpretation has inadvertently misled several posters to misinterpret this text. Ironically, your failure to research authorial intent in the relevant contexts of Proverbs' use of "the rod" makes you guilty of eisegesis here. Here is the first of several text from Proverbs that establish this point:

"The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by a neglected child...Discipline your children and they will give you rest...By mere words servants are not disciplined; for though they understand, they will not give heed (29:15, 17, 19)." The point is that words of admonition and comfort can provide understand, but often this understanding often does not lead to obedience. Thus, for Proverbs, when words are not enough, the cleansing punitive rod is needed: "Blows that wound cleanse away evil; beatings make clean the inmost parts (20:30)." Note the contextual reference to "youths" in the preceding verse.

Rev. Steve: "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.

Here, at least, you fail to grasp the relationship between language and culture. Baseball fans speak of a great pitcher's "filthy stuff," by which they don't mean that the pitcher cakes the ball with mud and dust, but rather that the ball curves and dances to elude the hitter. Similarly, the context of a biblical focus on the comforting and guiding "rod" always makes clear that a sheep metaphor is envisaged (see Psalm 23).. In the Pentateuch, the rod or staff symbolizes God's wonder-working signs (see especially Exodus 4:17).

Rev. Steve: "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."

In Proverbs parental use of "the rod" means both corporal punishment and discipline: "Do not withhold discipline from your children. If you beat them with the rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol (Proverbs (3:13-14)."

Though not synonymous, it clearly includes the connotation of punishment, as both Proverbs and Hebrews make clear:
"My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when you are punished by Him. For whom the Lord loves He disciplines and scourges (or "flogs"--Greek: mastigoi) everyone He accepts as a son (Hebrew 12:5-6)." Here Hebrews quotes Psalm 3:11-12 and translates the Hebrew for "reprove" as "scourge." Whether one accepts this translation or not, it clearly expresses NT values and fits well with the Proverbs' teaching on corporal discipline. Even Paul's metaphorical use of "rod" distinguishes it from gentle love: "Am I to come to you with a rod or with love in a spirit of gentleness (1 Corinthians 4:21)."

Great! Now I feel better! I'll check back in a few months to see if any civility has been imposed on board moderation.

 

[revsdd]

@revsdd : "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."

I initially decided to let this post go unchallenged because of the common modern abuse of this text and because the lack of board moderation here prevents me from constructive engagement in threads, but I have decided to respond to you, Steve, because your interpretation has inadvertently misled several posters to misinterpret this text. Ironically, your failure to research authorial intent in the relevant contexts of Proverbs' use of "the rod" makes you guilty of eisegesis here. Here is the first of several text from Proverbs that establish this point:

"The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by a neglected child...Discipline your children and they will give you rest...By mere words servants are not disciplined; for though they understand, they will not give heed (29:15, 17, 19)." The point is that words of admonition and comfort can provide understand, but often this understanding often does not lead to obedience. Thus, for Proverbs, when words are not enough, the cleansing punitive rod is needed: "Blows that wound cleanse away evil; beatings make clean the inmost parts (20:30)." Note the contextual reference to "youths" in the preceding verse.

Rev. Steve: "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.

Here, at least, you fail to grasp the relationship between language and culture. Baseball fans speak of a great pitcher's "filthy stuff," by which they don't mean that the pitcher cakes the ball with mud and dust, but rather that the ball curves and dances to elude the hitter. Similarly, the context of a biblical focus on the comforting and guiding "rod" always makes clear that a sheep metaphor is envisaged (see Psalm 23).. In the Pentateuch, the rod or staff symbolizes God's wonder-working signs (see especially Exodus 4:17).

Rev. Steve: "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."

In Proverbs parental use of "the rod" means both corporal punishment and discipline: "Do not withhold discipline from your children. If you beat them with the rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol (Proverbs (3:13-14)."

Though not synonymous, it clearly includes the connotation of punishment, as both Proverbs and Hebrews make clear:
"My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when you are punished by Him. For whom the Lord loves He disciplines and scourges (or "flogs"--Greek: mastigoi) everyone He accepts as a son (Hebrew 12:5-6)." Here Hebrews quotes Psalm 3:11-12 and translates the Hebrew for "reprove" as "scourge." Whether one accepts this translation or not, it clearly expresses NT values and fits well with the Proverbs' teaching on corporal discipline. Even Paul's metaphorical use of "rod" distinguishes it from gentle love: "Am I to come to you with a rod or with love in a spirit of gentleness (1 Corinthians 4:21)."

Great! Now I feel better! I'll check back in a few months to see if any civility has been imposed on board moderation.

I'm glad you feel better.

To keep it short, since you won't be back slumming it with us for a few months, my whole point was that there are contrasting images of the rod and that one has to grapple with those images to properly interpret the text. If one does not grapple with the contrasting images but simply accepts a bad paraphrase as accurate because it affirms one's existing bias then one is guilty of eisegesis.

As for your inability to properly engage - and I mean this constructively - it has little to do with moderation and more to do with your arrogance and pomposity. A little humility would do you wonders.

 

[Mystic]

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!