Fallen and Flawed

3 John 1:2: “Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul.”

Oral Roberts fav. One he built his abundant life gospel on.

The KJV says it this way: “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.”

I once thought this was my entitlement to prosperity and divine health.

Good stuff, Jonathan.

I learned a new word. Eisegesis. When looking it up, the definitions of the word emphasized the idea that eisegesis is when we bring our own ideas to the text instead of finding the text’s actual meaning.

Gotta be careful on that one, because sometimes we [me] see what I want to see. I need to start praying, “Lord, let me see what You mean, not what I want to see.” On twitter, you asked what questions we ask ourselves when studying the Bible…well there’s another one – Are you seeing what you want to see, or what is actually there? / Do you want to see what is there, or are you going to interpret what is there match what you want to see?

Well I learned a new word, but not how to pronounce it.

Daniel: “Eye-suh-Gee-sis,” accent on “Eye” and “Gee.” Hope that helps!

The Watch Tower takes advantage of an unchurched person’s tendency to simply read the passage shown them, without that immediate context. Almost any passage in Scripture can be taken thoroughly out of context if you don’t read the ones surrounding it. They used this to justify their various agendas.

This is why the greatest portion of their faithful come from three areas of the world population: unchurched people who have never read the Bible, aboriginal and native populations with no familiarity with the Christian faith or its Holy Book whatsoever, or Christian sects with a strong laity-clergy setup; where the laity is not expected to read the Bible in any depth but to rely for the most part on the clergy to interpret the Scriptures for them.

This is why it’s absolutely vital to read Scripture in context. Take the world’s favorite often-quoted often-misinterpreted piece of Scripture: John 3:16. Almost anyone on the street can quote it, but how many of them would know who Jesus was talking to at the time? (He was giving Nicodemus a verbal smack-down for being a so-called Jewish leader but having no real concept of what he was teaching!) And how many would be forced to re-think their sin-accepting syncretistic cultural Jesus if they read verses 17-21…?

Well thank you Denita, now my education is complete for the day.

Daniel: I only knew it because my husband is studying Biblical Greek…

@Demian: yeah, sad thing that prosperity gospel (little “g”). I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard a completely misinterpretation of Romans 4:17. It often goes like this; “Now, let’s speak things into existence as though they were not!” Um, last time I checked (about 4 seconds ago) the Scripture says that GOD speaks things into existence—not man.

@Daniel: good thoughts. Eisegsis is doing exactly what you said. It takes a Bible verse and completely removes it from its surrounding text. The way I remembered this was by using the word “Isolate.” It almost sounds the same: Iso-Jesus. That’s how you pronounce it.

@Denita: It’s always interesting to me to learn about your experience in the JW’s. Thanks for sharing those JW tactics, that really helps when it comes to witnessing to them.

Jonathan, I changed the image like you asked YOU UNRELENTING TASKMASTER! Okay. I’m better. By the way, wasn’t you asking me to change that image an example of “speaking things into existence”? ”

Demian, you just have a certain way of making me laugh… lol.

Hey, could you… just kidding!

Off the subject.. are there any winners for those free givaways yet?

I’ve been wondering also.

We got a winner, but haven’t heard back from them yet. Sorry guys. It wasn’t you. Still love me?

Demian, love tha you are having Jon write this guest series – good stuff!

Daniel, your comments are always to the point at enlightening.

Denita – wow, how I wish we had someone with your gifts commenting on our blog.

Just noticed – 3D’s now that’s a dynamic threesome!

Don, thanks a lot buddy!

To start with basics first – exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Eisegesis is a misinterpretation of the text. If you start with wrong definitions at the very beginning, how can you expect not to be wrong later? There are many ways to interpret and many ways to misinterpret, therefore it would be a fallacy to say that there is only one “correct” exegesis. Instead, there are only more or less likely propositions. Furthermore, exegesis is a double-edged sword. It is common on this blog to describe any interpretation that does not agree with the author’s to be eisegesis. This is wrong, unless any proof can be presented, not just blind faith. Proper exegesis is not based on the attitude often presented by fundamentalists: “God reveals that…”, “Bible says that…” and so on. It calls for a much more careful and balanced approach. You have to use many tools, such as textual criticism, study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience, classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text. All those are necessary if you are seriously trying to discover the meaning of the text objectively, while eisegesis is importing a subjective meaning into the text.

I was then astonished to read this blog entry only to discover eisegesis masquerading as exegesis. First of all, stating that “Exegesis is the embracing of a Scripture-derived theology. Eisegesis is man-centered theology” is incorrect, and already a bad start. What dictionary gives such definitions?

Then, to illustrate the bad exegesis here, I’ll simply focus on one example:

QUOTE

“For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20

What shall we say about this?
That we must “perform” greater deeds of righteousness than the pharisees?

Of course not! Our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees because the Pharisees had no real righteousness!

Therefore, we must trust in Jesus’ righteousness, and His alone. By this we inherit a righteousness that is beyond that of the Pharisees—one where Christ lives in us, which is one that pleases the Father.

UNQUOTE

Well, there is very little logic in this argument. If the Pharisees “had no real righteousness”, then surely there is NOTHING to surpass. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text, or the whole of Matthew’s gospel that would suggest that “we must trust in Jesus’ righteousness, and His alone”. Nothing at all – this is all a much later theology, totally non-existent at the time when this gospel was written (about 70 CE). Nor does the text mention any “deeds of righteousness” Unfortunately no amount of wishful thinking will replace responsible exegesis. And approaching a text with pre-existing assumption certainly does not make good exegesis. My impression is that this text was written for the readers who already agree with its conclusion, and is nothing more than a “feel good” piece.

In reality, the whole article is simply eisegesis – but nothing more. Proper exegesis must be very careful, consider all pros and cons, and would not allow for such outrageous claims. Some scholars who studied the gospel of Matthew as well as Pharisaical Judaism have claimed close links between Jesus and the Pharisees. For starters, Pharisees loved engaging in theological disputes, and so does Jesus in the gospel. Such disputes were a sign of respect and even though they involved disagreements they did not signify a real conflict. Jesus is reported to have commended the Pharisees in some respects (Matt 22:22-23). His “criticism” of them did not appear to extend to their beliefs (but then Jesus did not appear to criticise anyone’s beliefs, even though Judaism of his time was split into many sects) or their rituals. It was the excessive reliance on the letter of the law over the spirit of love that was the main point distinguishing between Jesus and the Pharisees.

This in fact serves as a very good analogy to modern times. We do have fundamentalists, our modern-day Pharisees, who do in fact engage in bibliolatry. They worship the Bible instead of God. They cling to the letter, think they possess the truth and foget what it means to love the others – including those who don’t agree with them. Their doctrines twist and distort Christianity. They insist on beliefs in bizarre, disproven doctrines, such as a recent creation of the Earth less than 10,000 years ago. They make beliefs in outdated, historically conditioned stories – such as a “virgin birth” into something relevant today. And because they know that their influence in the developed world is diminishing, they send their missionaries to places like Uganda to influence legislation so that they can show their power here – sentencing homosexuals to death will do the trick. They make themselves God’s police, even though the mandate they claim to possess is totally illegitimate.

What we need is more of the Jesus spirit. Spirit of love and humility. And we need less of absolutist claims. History shows that Christians have been too eager to kill for their ideas rather than die for them. Christianity can only make sense today if it is based on honesty and integrity, not imposing particular views and agenda on others. This means dealing with uncertainty rather than self-righteousness and empty self-assurance of today’s evangelicals. But if we want the ideas of Jesus to survive another century, there is no other option available. It is certainly not creating megachurches, run the same way McDonald’s and other evil companies operate. Jesus is not available for franchise.

To sum up, evangelical Christianity is like pastor Mike Guglielmucci, performing in his megachurch with an oxygen tube up his nose and his believers convinced that he is dying in cancer. Good trick to milk even more money from the gullible! Yet then the truth always comes out. Guglielmucci was revealed as a con who never had cancer. There is little doubt that those who run the church knew that but kept quiet as it was good for business. Once you remove the cover of lies it turns out that there is nothing underneath, and never was.

Jag, it is utterly disrespectful for you to account “the author’s of this blog” along side scandalous wolves infiltrating the Church of Jesus Christ. You think this is a “feel good” doctrine for me?

I am at a loss for words in how to describe my overwhelming sense of shock to your abhorrent comment.

I can’t believe you would use an argument of logic against me when you are doing the very thing you are describing on other posts. Why can’t you be as critical of yourself.

I pray that you turn from your hard-heartedness and turn toward Jesus, who is able to forgive you of your sins and bring you into a saving relationship with him. Only by His righteousness can you or I amount to anything.

And this does not feel good—it pricks the heart. But it is better for our hearts to be pricked now, rather than them to spend eternity in the lake of fire.

If you want to follow along in this study, you are welcome. But please, do not come here bashing.

Thanks, Jag.

If it is not Jesus’ righteousness that we trust in who’s is it? Are our righteous acts not filthy rags?

Isaiah 64:6

ColinB,

Thanks for stopping by!

Jag,

Upon re-reading my comment and a reminder from a friend, I realize that I may have come across in a judgmental and condemning way. This was not my intention at all, but it looks as though I didn’t stop and think long enough to realize it.

I was wrong.

Please forgive me if I have responded so aggressively. I have no authority to judge others and I did not intend to judge you. My response was more from emotion from thinking that you were intentionally being negative.

You need to know that my problem is not with you, but with myself and how I handle such opposition. And this is not my website to find such liberty in.

I don’t expect to gain any credit from this, but most likely have lost any credit with you that I had, if I had any.

In spite of my beliefs being different than yours, thanks for being open with your beliefs and thoughts and opinions toward the things that I have written about in this article.

—Jonathan

Jonathan,

As usual, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Likewise, I certainly did not mean to offend anyone, Demian and yourself in particular. And you are correct in that I would not have any right to do that even if I wanted to.

All I had to say was that the article was absolutely incorrect when it came to exegesis and eisegesis.

I just have to voice my protest when I see things like that. I do not doubt your good intentions, but I have come to realise that people like you are often being exploited by the church leaders. Having said that, I hope you realise that when I use terms like “evangelicals”, I am generalising and I certainly do not mean absolutely everyone. In fact, there is a growing movement within evangelicalism that embraces religious pluralism and dispenses with its traditional exclusivist claims. Rob Bell is a very good example of an evangelical theologian who is worth listening too. And so is the whole “evangelical left” movement, including “accepting evangelicals” and many others. I guess we just have to wait for the old generation to pass and for the young to take over.

Jag, thanks for your opinion.

Great critique, Jag. Very good indeed. One of your best. It’s also interesting because I learn more about you each time.

I have a question. When you say “We need to dispense with absolutist claims” isn’t that in itself an absolutist claim?

And what about your claim that we should “deal with uncertainty…not imposing particular views and agenda on others” so that Jesus survives another century?

Haven’t you pretty much been imposing your views and agenda on us?

For someone who speaks in particularly absolutist claims I find these statements surprising.

But I point this out to merely suggest that you are in fact okay with absolute statements…and so am I.

Our differences are what make this world a rich one indeed. I don’t think absolutist claims are wrong. I think killing or deceiving for them is…

Even so, what one person does with the truth has zero impact on the integrity of that truth. Gravity is still true even if an obese man squashes babies in the name of it.

So, listen: I’m open to what liberals like Rob Bell have to offer and have, in fact, found his moralizing to be very good…but sad to say antithetical to a Christ who came to fulfill the law by his life and death and resurrection.

I won’t kill for that truth. But I would certainly die for it.

Furthermore, I’ve got my own reasons for stiff-arming “pluralism,” but your brand seems especially sinister when you stump-speech inclusivity but have no patience for “fundamentalists.”

Jag, I point this out because you may not be aware of it, but your prolific, articulate and intelligent comments suggest a face of humility yet turn out on closer examination to be a fraud.

And ironically, it’s that very hypocrisy that drove Jesus up the wall.

But don’t worry: I’m a self-absorbed, hypocrite who is not beyond a circus act like Guglielmucci’s if not for the grace and merciful restraint of Jesus Christ…grace and mercy that is also extended to you.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Jag, your comment, “I guess we just have to wait for the old generation to pass and for the young to take over” is revealing.

Do you dismiss simply because of one’s age? Do you give no credit for the wisdom that often comes from experience?

And think about it, waiting for the old to die will place you in that category. You will be old and younger, brash, inexperienced know-it-alls will be trying to knock you off the perch. The wisdom and knowledge that you have taken a life-time to gain will be dismissed out of hand.

Ironical, don’t you think?

Hi Demian,

I do not intend to make claims. If you ever see me doing this, please point it out. When I ask to dispense with absolutist claims, it’s merely a proposition, which in my opinion would be helpful. The same refers to my views on Jesus. I do not propose to replace one Jesus with another. I do not even offer the whole picture of Jesus. There is so much we do not and will never know about Jesus. My proposition is simply not to claim that “my Jesus is bigger than yours”, unless you can prove it beyond any doubt. I believe that my views are based on reasonable evidence, but there will always be doubt. I long for a church in which both fundamentatists and liberals can love and thrive together. And I feel that most liberals think that too. We do not excomunicate conservatives. However, it is the fundamentalists who create their own churches, as they think they are so much better than us. And as soon as one of them turns liberal, s/he is disfellowshipped.

Don’t you realise that making absolutist claims leads straight to killing for them? Since I am so obviously right (chosen by God, enlightened by the Holy Spirit) and you are so obviously wrong, then it is only natural that I kill you and am sure God will find the smell of your burning body pleasing… It’s happened for millennia – crusades, inquisition, reformation, colonialism, and so many more.

Did you just call Rob Bell a liberal???? I am asking seriously, as I do not know much about him. From the little I read he came across as a conservative/evangelical, just a more open-minded one than most of them.

DB,

I would certainly not dare say that all older people are wrong and young are right!!! I was suggesting that new ideas take time before they are accepted and established. I have a lot of respect for wisdom and experience. Having said that, I do realise that the ideas I am proposing now, and which may seem radical to many, will at some point be outdated and too backwards. And I am OK with this. I have no absolutist claim for the truth. We can only run after the truth, but we can never grasp it. Which makes the running wortwhile!

[...] two was H for “Halting”—when Scripture causes us to put on the brakes.What’s next? Follow this link to read more. —Jonathan:: Subscribe via RSS ::Related articlesRe: FocusT.H.I.N.C – [...]

[...] the whole point of this Bible Study.So far I have covered the following topics:T=Trust H=Halting I=Immediate Context N=NavigationGo HERE to read more. :: Subscribe via RSS :: /**/This website uses IntenseDebate [...]