Theological Musings

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

ftentimes on group blogs, one runs the risk of their post getting “bumped” by another contributor’s post.  This happens when one posts, say, in the morning, and by mid-afternoon, someone else has posted on top of them.  I guess it’s part of the risk on a group blog.  However, I’m the only author on this blog, and I’m going to bump myself!

I realize I sometimes go days or even weeks without posting, and then inspiration comes all of a sudden.  I should probably draft this one and wait a day or two to post it, but I won’t.

At any rate, I was typing a comment on my previous post when I happened to see the verse of the day from BibleGateway in my sidebar.  I must admit that I rarely read my own blog, so I rarely see the verse of the day over there.  But in this particular case, the position of the comment box happened to be right next to it on my screen, and so it caught my eye.

Here is today’s verse (Wednesday, March 14) — 2 Peter 1:5-8 in the New American Standard (the sidebar shows it in the NIV):

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are a couple of things that jumped out at me on this.  But first of all, let’s get the context.  Peter begins with “Now for this reason…”, so obviously it behooves us to look at what preceded this.

He begins this thought in verse 2 by speaking “grace and peace” over his readers “in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord….”  (Not very trinitarian, but I digress…!)  Note that he refers to “the knowledge”, so he obviously sees it important that we either possess knowledge about God, or that we obtain knowledge that comes from God.

He goes on to say that “[God’s] divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” — wait, let’s pause there.  Think about that.  Everything that we need for life and godliness is ours!  That is an amazing truth!

Then, Peter tells us the way in which we “tap into” all that we need for life and godliness: “…through the true knowledge of Him….”  Now, it would be tempting at this point to think that Peter is exalting knowledge.  Therefore, we should study, and learn, and parse, and exegete, and…  But I don’t think that’s the point Peter is getting at.  That’s where today’s verse caught my eye.  But I’m not there yet.  There’s more.

Peter says that “by these [since it’s plural, I’m assuming that he is referring to “everything pertaining to life and godliness”, or perhaps “life and godliness” itself] He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature” — whoa!  Did you see that?  “Partakers of the divine nature”.  Wow!  That’s heavy!  I’ll leave it up to you readers to ponder what that means, but I’m thinking it might not mean what we have downplayed it to mean.  I’m thinking that it might have something to do with the oneness that Jesus prayed for in John 17.  Just a thought.  (Or maybe Peter was examining Mormonism! hehe) Now, back to our text…

So, all of that lays the groundwork as the reason Peter gives his instruction in the verses I quoted above (2 Peter 1:5-8).  We must, with all diligence, augment our faith (in sort of cascading, or snowballing form) with moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love.  That’s quite a list, but I think illustrates the need to combine knowledge (i.e., theological knowledge) with things that reflect a lot of what Paul called “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5.

“For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  I would say that being “neither useless nor unfruitful” are excellent goals for the believer!

Peter isn’t saying that you must do all these things in order to be saved.  But he does go on to say that it’s a good way to be “certain”.  And I think certainty is a good thing.  If we are unsure of our position in Christ, we (in some sense) teeter on the edge.  But if we are certain of who we are and the position we have, we can grow and move deeper into that.

Several years ago, I had a discussion with a friend about a church in which we were both involved at the time.  One of my frustrations was that the senior pastor was constantly making people feel like they might not be saved.  (This is a horrible thing to do, by the way, and is one of the reasons I ended up pulling away from that particular church finally.)

The friend with whom I was discussing this didn’t quite understand what my problem was.  I pointed to Hebrews 6 where the author of Hebrews says that we should move beyond the elementary things of the faith.  I contended that, by keeping people feeling like they were on the edge of their salvation, possibly falling out, that they were never able to move beyond that and go deeper in their relationship with Christ.  I still believe that.

My prayer for each of you, my dear readers, is that you will find yourself not only certain of your calling and standing in Christ, but that you will find yourself useful and fruitful “in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Until next time,

steve

n a rather intriguing conversation over at Dan Edelen’s blog, Dan posted some questions. He asked:

1. At what point have we surrendered enough of the foundational doctrines behind the Gospel that it warps into “another gospel?”
2. JWs say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?
3. Mormons say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?
4. How much unorthodoxy do we tolerate in our orthodoxy before we call it “unorthodox”?
5. At what point does a person’s belief system fail to meet God’s standard for believing faith unto salvation?

These questions resulted from a protracted debate over whether or not Dan was saying that a certain leader was not saved, and whether or not any of us has that right to make that judgment.

Last fall, as I recently referenced, we talked here about what is essential for identifying someone as a brother or sister in Christ. My “short list” concerned people because it didn’t sufficiently exclude some groups of people. Dan’s questions come at it from the opposite angle in some senses, and I want to offer my thoughts on this.

Let me begin by answering Dan’s questions:

1. At what point have we surrendered enough of the foundational doctrines behind the Gospel that it warps into “another gospel”?

This question is full of all kinds of other questions. What are the “foundational doctrines behind the Gospel”? And what is “another gospel”? What does it mean to “surrender” doctrines?

In Dan’s post, it was very clear that he saw the doctrine of the Trinity as a “foundational doctrine behind the Gospel”. But that, in itself, is a presupposition. I have yet to find an example of the presentation of the Gospel in the New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity comes into play at all.

According to the apostle Paul, the Gospel is encapsulated in “Jesus died for our sins according to the Scripture, was buried, and was raised according to the Scriptures.” When faced with the question, “What must I do to be saved?”, Paul responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Over and over, the call in the New Testament is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The foundational doctrine of the Gospel is not the Trinity, according to the apostles. I have blogged before about the fact that Paul doesn’t even emphasize the Trinity much at all in his writings. He often greets his readers in the name of the “God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (or some similar statement), but doesn’t invoke the name of the Spirit in his greetings and benedictions (with one or two exceptions).

The “doctrine of the Trinity” was emphasized in later church councils, but not in the teaching of the apostles. As such, I don’t believe it can be emphasized as a “foundational doctrine” of the Gospel.

So, getting back to Dan’s question, the foundational elements of the Gospel revolve around what Jesus did with regard to our sins. It is our faith in that which brings salvation. As Paul wrote in Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”

“Another gospel” is one which proclaims salvation through something other than Jesus.

2. JWs say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?

This question gets to the heart of the controversy in my last post. If someone who is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has placed their trust solely in the work of Jesus on the cross on behalf of their sins, I have no problem believing they are saved. They are not saved by being a JW, nor are they (in my opinion) damned solely on the basis of being a JW.

Does that mean that it doesn’t matter if they are a JW? It means that, if God wants to lead them out of being a JW, and they are in Christ, they will have the ability to hear His voice and follow the leading of His Spirit in that regard.

It’s similar to how I wrote before about a friend of mine wanting to witness to a homosexual. He asked, “How do I tell them, ‘Come and meet my God, who by the way, hates your lifestyle’?” My answer was, “You don’t. You introduce him to Christ and let the Holy Spirit do His job.” It’s not our job to convict of sin, nor is it our job to make disciples of ourselves. You can share your concerns, and you can help direct their thinking toward certain Scripture passages, or whatever. But ultimately, it is the work of the Spirit. Jesus said that when the Spirit came, He would convict of sin.

I see the same application to dealing with JWs or Mormons or whatever camp you think is so horrifically misguided that someone can’t possibly be saved within their ranks. Show Christ to them. Love them. Disciple them. And if they are a child of God, they will be led by the Spirit of God. We cannot usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in this regard.

3. Mormons say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?

See number 2 above. As I have expressed here already this week, this kind of question is the wrong one to ask. The question should not be “Are Mormons Christians?” but rather, “Is someone who places their trust solely in Jesus for their salvation a Christian, regardless of their current affiliation?”

See, in the comments on my last post, Rod expressed the horrifying possibility that I could have eternally altered the direction of someone’s heart for the worse by embracing them as a brother when they couldn’t possibly (in Rod’s mind) be a brother. Frankly, I think this is nonsense. If someone professes Christ and shows in their life Christlike behavior, is there any reason for me to hold them at arms’ length? Is that anywhere found in Scripture?? I don’t think so.

4. How much unorthodoxy do we tolerate in our orthodoxy before we call it “unorthodox”?

“Orthodoxy” is a very interesting subject. There is an assumption that all of the decisions of church councils in the past were completely accurate and necessary as litmus tests for fellowship. I would contend that this presents two problems:

1. This puts church council declarations on par with Scripture. The problem with this is not so much that we do it, but that we are not even honest enough to admit that we do it. This has begun to trouble me more and more in recent months. When anyone tries to make Nicea a litmus test for salvation, asking people to agree to a statement that is extra-biblical, they have gone farther than the apostles ever did in their preaching and evangelizing.
2. This conveniently overlooks the things that were declared in those same church councils that we do not readily embrace. In this pick-and-choose mentality to “orthodoxy”, we end up being dishonest about our sources and impose extra-biblical requirements on others.

“Orthodoxy” is not the goal. Faith in Christ is. I am not opposed to maintaining some record of “orthodoxy”, but I am opposed to replacing the true Gospel message with lists of orthodox doctrines.

5. At what point does a person’s belief system fail to meet God’s standard for believing faith unto salvation?

Quite simply, there are two answers that come to my mind. One is “That’s not our call to make”, but the other is more focused on the biblical record: “When the object of that faith ceases to be Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for our sins.”

In our rush to defend orthodoxy and correct doctrine, etc., I actually fear that it is we who are preaching “another gospel”. We have taken the basic message of salvation — the good news of the Gospel — and turned it into propositions about other doctrines that we then insist others must adhere to.

If the Gospel is, as Paul says it is, about Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, then I see no other conclusion, but that everything else must be secondary to that in our “litmus test”. We can instruct, we can teach, we can defend and plead our viewpoints. But we cannot stand in judgment of others on the basis of our doctrine, save that of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. And even then, I believe we should exercise immense restraint before passing judgment on someone’s eternal destiny.

In Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus told a parable about wheat and tares. When asked if the tares should be pulled out, the owner of the field said, “No…. Allow both to grow together until the harvest.” Why? Because, as he explained, pulling the tares up might uproot the wheat as well. Let us tread very carefully in our zeal to uproot tares among us.

Until next time,

steve

ome of my regular readers may remember an interesting discussion we had here last September regarding the essentials of Christianity. One of those posts carried a tongue-in-cheek title of “But What About Those Mormons?” The basic gist of that post and other posts was that we often seek to define Christianity by who or what our definition excludes.

The reason I brought up the particular topic of Mormons was because of some comments on a post prior to that one where some expressed concern that the “short list” of things I felt needed to be agreed upon for fellowship was sufficiently short that it “would include Mormons as Christians.” This sentiment seemed to indicate that the desire on the part of some is to begin with a presupposition of who’s “in” and who’s “out” and then find what those who are “in” agree on and make that the basis for salvation.

Well, with that in mind, I wanted to share with my readers a comment that was recently made to me. A family that Christy and I have gotten to know over the past few months came over to our house for dinner last night. We had a great time! They are a very sweet couple who have adorable identical twin toddler boys (each of which I consistently called by the other’s name through the whole evening!).

After dinner, the husband and I (I won’t reveal their names here since I did not ask their permission to do so) talked about spiritual topics. I knew prior to the time together that this family is part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka the Mormon Church. He was gracious enough to allow me to pepper him with questions and to share some of my own thoughts. It was a delightful conversation.

As we talked, and I shared some of the things that I have been mulling over for the last several years (many of which I’ve mused about here on this blog), he made a very interesting comment. He said, “If I didn’t know prior to this conversation, from the things that you are saying about God and the Bible, etc., I would think that you were a very good Mormon.”

(Insert pause here to allow my readers time to go remove my blog from their links, pray for my salvation, and mourn over the loss of their good friend…)

No, seriously. I have to tell you that this comment took me quite by surprise.  I wanted to share it here (I got his permission to do so) because I wanted to illustrate a point that I have been mulling over all day long now.  It is the point that I tried to make last fall in the aforementioned post.

We can be so quick to write off entire groups of people because of what we think they believe. But I found in conversation last night that there are an awful lot of points of agreement. Some of my readers may disagree quite strongly, and I respect that.

Do I believe that Mormonism has all the answers? No, I don’t. And I was quite up front with my guest that I was not asking questions with the intent of converting to Mormonism. But at the same time, I would have to ask, is there any denomination, world religion, or belief system that has all the answers? I don’t think so.

One of the things I found out about Mormonism last night that I admire is that they respect truth wherever it is found. Is this not something that I, as a non-Mormon, can affirm? If truth comes from God — indeed, Jesus said that He is the truth — then truth is valid, even if it is found in some source other than what we perceive to be a “safe” source. Does Paul not say in Romans 1 that even creation speaks truth about God?

Another thing that came out of our discussion last night is the fact that each one of us is responsible for trusting God for ourselves, and seeking the truth that comes from God within our own heart. We can’t ride on the coattails of some other person, teacher, or leader. This, I believe, is consistent with Scripture (i.e., the Bereans searching out Scripture to verify Paul’s message, our instructions to weigh prophecy, test spirits, God’s instructions to Israel to test the words of a prophet, etc.).

Some of my readers might not understand why I would think that it was a good thing to be told that I sounded like a good Mormon. But I’ll tell you why I actually took that as a positive thing. That shows me that there are many, many points of agreement between us that could have been missed if I just wrote him off as “just a Mormon”. And I, for one, am glad I took the time to look for those points of agreement without jumping to conclusions.

In the same way that I desire not to write someone off because of a group they’re associated with, I likewise do not take last night’s conversation to lead me to a conclusion that all within Mormonism are saved. But then, I don’t operate on the assumption that all within the Baptist camp, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, etc. are saved, either! In other words, salvation is something which each individual must receive themselves. And we should engage in fellowship on that basis.

As for the fruit I have seen in my friends’ lives, and the conversation I had last night, I came away more convinced than ever that they are my brother and sister in Christ. And when I said that, my dear friend responded with, “And we would say the same about you.”

Until next time,

steve

s most of you know, Christy and I are homeschooling our son. I’m not ready to make the claim that homeschooling is the right choice for everyone, but for us, it definitely was the right choice.

One of the challenges with homeschooling is deciding what curricula to use in educating our child. Thanks to the increasing freedoms over the past several decades across our nation with regard to homeschooling, there are many, many choices and options available.

Over the course of this first year of homeschooling (our son was in the public school system up until the end of last year), we have already made several modifications in our curricula and looked at many different choices for various subjects.

Quite a few of the choices out there claim to be biblical in content, either directly based on the Bible or based on principles derived from the Bible. For example, we started the year with a grammar curriculum that used verses and passages from Scripture to illustrate different grammatical principles. The concept behind it was that the child would not only learn correct grammar, but get familiar with many passages of Scripture in the process.

We are no longer using that curriculum for several reasons. One reason is that it used the King James version, which is not a version we use much at all in our home, nor is it the way we speak in modern English anyway. The other reason is what I am about to get to in this post.

Recently, while looking at some curricula online, Christy came across a reading program that, again, used the Bible as the source of its material. Like with the grammar curriculum, the idea seems to be that children get exposed to the Bible as a side-benefit to their academic studies.

Now, in and of itself, I don’t have a problem with this. Obviously, I want my son to become familiar with Scripture. That’s why we take time every morning in our homeschool schedule to read from the Bible, reading straight through from Genesis to Revelation.

However, I have a concern about some of these ideas for Bible-based curricula that prevents me from embracing them 100% wholesale. That concern goes back to my days in Bible college and seminary. It is the idea of using the Bible as any sort of textbook.

When I was in college, it was not uncommon for a course to require us to read certain books of the Bible 4, 5, or even 10 times through. And often, 10% or so of our grade on a test was the simple question, “Did you complete the assigned reading for this test?”

You would think that reading through so much Scripture would be extraordinarily life-changing, right? Wrong. At least for me, it wasn’t. And for many of my classmates, it did not appear to be, either.

Why is that? And what is the alternative? Just not reading the Bible altogether? I hardly think so!

I think that the reason the Bible had so little impact on my life in those days (and the same was true in seminary), was because the Bible was a textbook. It was a place to find answers to homework questions. It was a source for a grade needed to keep moving through my studies. It was a means to an end that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

The most frequently given basis for viewing the Bible in this way is the familiar command to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15, KJV). However, as I have pointed out several times before here on this blog, the translation of “study” has no basis that I can find. For this reason, almost every translation apart from the King James translates that word as “be diligent” or “do your best” or “work hard”, etc.

See, the problem with using the Bible as a textbook is what that ultimately leads to. It leads to viewing the Bible in small, disconnected fragments (the basis for “prooftexting”), and it leads to seeing the Bible as a means to knowledge alone.

It also can lead to what I see as some unbalanced views of Scripture.  For example, some people turn the Bible into a scientific textbook, using it as the “proof” for certain scientific concepts.  Others turn the Bible into a legal document, using it as justification or condemnation of certain activities or choices.

What was Jesus’ view of the Bible of his day (what we now call the Old Testament)?

You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (John 5:38-40)

The point of the Old Testament, according to Jesus, was to point people to Himself, the source of eternal life. Hebrews 1:1-2 seems to confirm this notion, as well.

It took me quite a few years to “detox” from my view of the Bible as a textbook. And what I have found in the time since then is that a relationship with the One to Whom the Bible points is so much more fulfilling, so much more exciting, and so much more life-changing than merely studying the Bible in and of itself.

One of the buzzwords currently used by some who have the same idea I have here is “narrative”. The Bible is a narrative. This recaptures the notion of seeing the Bible as a whole, not a bunch of smaller parts. It doesn’t minimize anything about Scripture, nor its origin, nor its value to our lives. But it seems to me to put it into a more proper perspective. I like that.

So, in our homeschool, we have chosen not to use the Bible as a textbook, but rather to give it the place it deserves — as a written record (or revelation) of who Jesus is, and how to have a relationship with the Father (and by extension, each other) through Jesus.

It is my hope and prayer that my son will grow up to know the One revealed in Scripture, and not just know the Scripture itself.

Until next time,

steve