|
 ver at Alan Knox’s blog, a lengthy discussion has resulted from a post of his called “The Church or the Organization?“. One of the things that has occurred in that discussion is some confusion about what is “exegesis” and what is “eisegesis”.
Now, for those of you not familiar with those terms, let me define them briefly for you. “Exegesis” is the process by which we determine what a particular text means. While all of us come to a text (especially a biblical text) with certain presuppositions, the goal of the exegete is to minimize the impact of those presuppositions on our interpretation, allowing (as much as possible) the text to speak for itself. Ideally, the meaning of the text should actually change our thinking if our previous conclusions were incorrect. “Eisegesis”, on the other hand, is the opposite process. It is reading back into the text what we think the text is saying. It is taking our presuppositions and imposing them on the text to the point that we may actually come away from the text with an entirely incorrect understanding. It is not always easy to tell the difference! Sometimes our traditions have influenced us so strongly that we are so sure that what we read in Scripture supports our traditions. It’s very hard to tell the difference between what we presuppose, and what the text actually says. This can result in two types of errors (generally speaking). One error is that we can minimize the text by reducing its actual message. The other error is that we can make the text say more than it really says. Let me give you an example. This is not to open up this particular can of worms again, but just to illustrate the point. Recently, I blogged about the different views of the timing of the rapture. One of the passages that I referred to is John 14:3. In my explanation of that verse, I pointed out that Jesus does not say that He will return to take us to heaven. However, I have read defenses of a pre-trib rapture that state that. This is a case where we make the text say more than it really says. So, what is the process by which we can minimize the effects of eisegesis and actually strive toward more accurate exegesis? Well, there are several things to keep in mind. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to even be thorough in its explanations, but just a nudge in the right direction. - When seeking to understand the meaning of a particular word, first examine the usage of that same word within the immediate context. “Immediate context” might include the chapter (artificial as that subdivision is) in which the word appears, or better yet, the book itself.
- Secondly, examine the usage of that word by the same author, if that author wrote other books. This is especially helpful in situations where you are examining Paul’s use of certain words.
- Next, examine the usage of that word by other biblical authors.
This first part of the process of exegesis sometimes can help us understand the meaning of a word or phrase without having to go too much further. But sometimes the word or phrase at hand doesn’t appear very often, or in some cases, only appears once in the entire Bible. The example that came up in the discussion over at Alan’s blog is the Greek word kubernesis. This word appears in 1 Corinthians 12:28 in a list of spiritual gifts. It is translated in the NASB as “administrations”, but no explanation is given. (The KJV uses the word “governments”.) In this case, we don’t have other usages in context, or by the same author, or by other authors in the Bible. This is a one-time usage by Paul. So, what is the next process to incorporate into our exegesis? - When supplied with a definition by a lexicon or some other source, test that definition against the immediate context.
- See if the same author deals with similar concepts, or in any other way explains how he would view the definition at hand.
- Test the definition against the rest of the teaching of Scripture to see if it is consistent with other revelation.
This is where it can get a bit trickier, but care and humility are definitely needed. The definition given to kubernesis is “governing”. It has been stated in the thread over at Alan’s that it is a naval term referring to “ship steering”. This is then carried even further by a commenter there to say that since pastors are the ones responsible for “steering the ship” in a local body, this gift applies only to pastors. Furthermore, this gift plays out in that God gives each pastor a “vision” for that local body, and that vision becomes paramount in that church. All other giftedness apparently is only valid in the sense in which it supports that vision. So, let’s test this against some things, and see if this is valid exegesis, or if it is, in fact, eisegesis. Does the immediate context connect kubernesis to pastor? No. In fact, “pastor” is not even mentioned in this chapter, or the entire book of 1 Corinthians, for that matter. This connection is not gathered exegetically, but is eisegetically forced back into the text. Furthermore, how does Paul view value in certain gifts? Does he emphasize “leadership” in his discussion of spiritual gifts? Hardly. Check out this section of the very same chapter: [I]t is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor 12:22-25, emphasis mine)
So, the idea of “ship steering” as a position to determine the entire direction of a church does not even seem to hold up against Paul’s own context. Furthermore, the idea of a “local vision” is not to be found in the New Testament. Nor is the idea that God will give a vision (even if such a concept of “local vision” was warranted) to one person within the body that the rest of the body must support and follow. What is the vision for the church? Maturity. Unity. Disciple-making. Mutual edification. These are all aspects of God’s design for the church which are clearly supported by Scripture. Whatever kubernesis means, we cannot afford to put weight on it that contradicts the rest of the teaching of the New Testament. Let us always strive to let the text speak first before we assume to know what it means. Only then can we have the humility and grace to learn what God has revealed to us through Scripture and separate our traditions from actual revelation. Until next time, steve 
Original content by: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheologicalMusings/~3/107000729/.
|
