Exegesis alone will not work

[evangelist6589]

Heard a message today on Psalms 3 & 4. The speaker has a great heart so I do not discredit him there. However his conclusions I did not agree with. Using exegesis alone he made a case that when a Christian is discontent with his/her position and status in life (being single, having a low paying job, etc..) then he/she has a sin problem and needs to get right with God. Yes using Psalms 3 & 4 one can interpret it that way, however Biblical theology will say otherwise. Read the book of Job and the theology of suffering which is a major theme in that book. Also reading what Jesus said in John 17 and in the garden indicates that not all suffering & heartache is of ourselves. Sometimes the devil & his demons will inject thoughts into our heads, and cause us to suffer, and be discontent with our life. Authors like Erwin Lutzer & Warren Wiersbe seem to indicate the same in some of their books. What do you say?



John

 

[OldRegular]

Exegesis should work but it must be in the context of all of Scripture!

 

[evangelist6589]

Exegesis should work but it must be in the context of all of Scripture!

Yes this is what I said. Exegesis alone without biblical theology will not work. I could use exegesis alone and think I can pick up snakes and drink poison. If I was only using the KJV/NKJV I would not get the note that the ending of Mark is not in most reliable MSS evidences, and so exegesis would teach me to go and pick up snakes and drink poison.

 

[jbh28]

Exegesis alone will not work

Ya need a little eisegesis as well!

Proper exegesis will always work. Proper exegesis will always look at the context. That includes not only the grammatical context, but the historical and canonical contexts as well.

 

[evangelist6589]

Exegesis alone will not work

Ya need a little eisegesis as well!

Proper exegesis will always work. Proper exegesis will always look at the context. That includes not only the grammatical context, but the historical and canonical contexts as well.

This is what I said. Exegesis all by itself without the CONTEXT of the theology of the Bible will not work.

 

[freeatlast]

Heard a message today on Psalms 3 & 4. The speaker has a great heart so I do not discredit him there. However his conclusions I did not agree with. Using exegesis alone he made a case that when a Christian is discontent with his/her position and status in life (being single, having a low paying job, etc..) then he/she has a sin problem and needs to get right with God. Yes using Psalms 3 & 4 one can interpret it that way, however Biblical theology will say otherwise. Read the book of Job and the theology of suffering which is a major theme in that book. Also reading what Jesus said in John 17 and in the garden indicates that not all suffering & heartache is of ourselves. Sometimes the devil & his demons will inject thoughts into our heads, and cause us to suffer, and be discontent with our life. Authors like Erwin Lutzer & Warren Wiersbe seem to indicate the same in some of their books. What do you say?



John

I would say his understanding is in total correct agreement with the Lord.
PHL 4:11
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, [therewith] to be content.
Hebrews 13:5
[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
.
A godly person, Paul is an example, is content no matter their circumstances, prison, free, single, married, eating or not eating, and if they see something that is pleasing and different they can find contentment in that also if the Lord opens the door for it. In other words their life is not sumed up in what they have, don't have, where they live or work, or any other thing. It has to do with the spirit of the person being so surrendered to the Lord that their place in life is not one of discontentment. Everything is of the Lord and they are surrendered to Him. I would say the man was correct in what he said in the message based on what you said about it.
By the way the devil has no authority over a Christian and cannot put anything ionto our heads.
1John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

 

[Greektim]

Yes this is what I said. Exegesis alone without biblical theology will not work. I could use exegesis alone and think I can pick up snakes and drink poison. If I was only using the KJV/NKJV I would not get the note that the ending of Mark is not in most reliable MSS evidences, and so exegesis would teach me to go and pick up snakes and drink poison.

What is your definition of biblical theology? Is it a theology that is biblical or the sub-category of a theological discipline like systematic theology or historical theology?

If the first, then to ascertain a theology that is "biblical" means you must use exegesis as well. You end up w/ a hermeneutical spiral.

If the second, then I'm not sure you are using the term correctly.

If something different, please clarify.

 

[jbh28]

This is what I said. Exegesis all by itself without the CONTEXT of the theology of the Bible will not work.

Yes we agree, the only thing is that "exegesis" without looking at the context of the entire bible is not exegesis.

 

[Van]

The argument seems to go like this. Someone studied Psalm 3 and 4 and came up with a principle that the sole cause of discontent with our life is sin. Obviously that is not taught, for we are to be discontent with the sin in our life. However, the argument, citing this flawed effort at bible study, concluded we must filter our study though someone's systematic theology.

This goes the long way around the barn to claim folks must study the thoughts of traditional theologians in order to be able to understand scripture. The difficulty however is when the traditional view is errant, and the understanding that arises from study of the actual text is correct. Luther came to the conclusion that many of the traditional views were the invention of men.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Using exegesis alone he made a case that when a Christian is discontent with his/her position and status in life (being single, having a low paying job, etc..) then he/she has a sin problem and needs to get right with God.

If a person misinterprets the Word and spins it to say something that it does not say, even if by accident, then that isn't exegesis, is it? :thumbs: That would be eisegesis. :flower:

 

[evangelist6589]

I would say his understanding is in total correct agreement with the Lord.
PHL 4:11
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, [therewith] to be content.
Hebrews 13:5
[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
.
A godly person, Paul is an example, is content no matter their circumstances, prison, free, single, married, eating or not eating, and if they see something that is pleasing and different they can find contentment in that also if the Lord opens the door for it. In other words their life is not sumed up in what they have, don't have, where they live or work, or any other thing. It has to do with the spirit of the person being so surrendered to the Lord that their place in life is not one of discontentment. Everything is of the Lord and they are surrendered to Him. I would say the man was correct in what he said in the message based on what you said about it.
By the way the devil has no authority over a Christian and cannot put anything ionto our heads.
1John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Who says the devil cannot put anything in our minds? The devil can do everything that God lets him. Satan filled the heart of the believers Aninas and Sapharia and they we will see in heaven

 

[evangelist6589]

Yes we agree, the only thing is that "exegesis" without looking at the context of the entire bible is not exegesis.

I know that, but there are those that preach messages and call it exegesis whom by mistake or what not miss the context of the entire Bible.

 

[jbh28]

I know that, but there are those that preach messages and call it exegesis whom by mistake or what not miss the context of the entire Bible.

very true. We tend to think of "taking out of context" to be the immediate context surrounding the passage. But we also have the context of the entire Bible as you mentioned. We have to make sure our interpretation of one passage doesn't contradict another passage.

 

[Greektim]

very true. We tend to think of "taking out of context" to be the immediate context surrounding the passage. But we also have the context of the entire Bible as you mentioned. We have to make sure our interpretation of one passage doesn't contradict another passage.

But then how do you determine the meaning of "another passage"??? Seems a bit circular to me.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes this is what I said. Exegesis alone without biblical theology will not work. I could use exegesis alone and think I can pick up snakes and drink poison. If I was only using the KJV/NKJV I would not get the note that the ending of Mark is not in most reliable MSS evidences, and so exegesis would teach me to go and pick up snakes and drink poison.

UMMM....NO...you would be missing something critical: prophecies fulfilled in
Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.


Act 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.


Act 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

AND ALSO:

Act 28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.


Act 28:9 So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed:


Therefore: your ill-educated dig at the Authority of the KJV is decidedly not realized; in that (properly understood) the context of the prophetical statement contained in:
Mar 16:18 which your translation claims ("most reliable MSS" omit) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Would not have been fulfilled, and some of the Authority and power of the ENTIRETY of the revealed Word of God would have been lost.

This is sad....I am not merely jockeying for a KJVO position. But your post is also ignorant, in that you assume, and I quote:

the ending of Mark is not in most reliable MSS

This is based upon one, and only one assumption: That the AGE of a manuscript necessarily equates to its reliability or authority. This is a VERY debatable assumption. Most liner notes do NOT read this way. They usually read: Most ancient MSS omit.....or...The earliest MSS omit. Those are true and valuable statements provided by the translators of respectable versions to key us on to something. They DO NOT build in the ASSUMPTION, that you have apparently learned, that they are of necessity THE

most reliable MSS

Your translation's liner notes are not helping you, in that: the obvious realization of those particular prophecies (found only in the KJV/NKJV) are beautifully and fully realized in Acts 28:3-9. Be a KJV hater all you want: Just learn something about the topic before you post in ignorance.

 

[jbh28]

But then how do you determine the meaning of "another passage"??? Seems a bit circular to me.

Anytime we read, we have to keep in mind other passages. If our conclusion forms a contradiction, then our interpretation(either in our current passage or the other) is wrong. So while it's possible to conclude something from passage A, when we read passage B, we realize that we were wrong on passage A. Some passages can, if left by themselves, yield more than one possible conclusion while others will only have one possible conclusion.

 

[kyredneck]

Hodge's KISS

Anytime we read, we have to keep in mind other passages. If our conclusion forms a contradiction, then our interpretation(either in our current passage or the other) is wrong. So while it's possible to conclude something from passage A, when we read passage B, we realize that we were wrong on passage A. Some passages can, if left by themselves, yield more than one possible conclusion while others will only have one possible conclusion.

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.
2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

 

[jbh28]

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.
2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Greektim]

Anytime we read, we have to keep in mind other passages. If our conclusion forms a contradiction, then our interpretation(either in our current passage or the other) is wrong. So while it's possible to conclude something from passage A, when we read passage B, we realize that we were wrong on passage A. Some passages can, if left by themselves, yield more than one possible conclusion while others will only have one possible conclusion.

I appreciate what you are saying here, but my beef is that interpretation is a spiral. Every time you read the text anew, you do so w/ new motives, persuasions, and predilections. You also have to exegete one text in order to compare it to another text. And so in that sense, exegesis alone is what is required. YOu cannot properly compare text A w/ text B if you have not exegeted them both. AND, you are using the spiral of interpretation when you prove "scripture cannot contradict scripture" from scripture. Even that conclusion takes a certain amount of reasoning and inference from exegeting a specific passage or two. In the end, it comes down to one's hermeneutic and his willingness to bend his interpretation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Anytime we read, we have to keep in mind other passages. If our conclusion forms a contradiction, then our interpretation(either in our current passage or the other) is wrong. So while it's possible to conclude something from passage A, when we read passage B, we realize that we were wrong on passage A. Some passages can, if left by themselves, yield more than one possible conclusion while others will only have one possible conclusion.

As does the author interprete it in his books? As do other NT writers interprete it in theirs? How did the OT writers speak on it , remembering that there is the doctrine of progessive revelation in the bible! As the NT authors 'filled in, made more clear" what God said in the old!

Also remember Contex drives the meaning in a large way!