The video link you can click on above is based on an article I wrote for Logos Bible Software. And when I do that, I don’t post the article directly to my mailing list. You can read the article here or watch the video here.
Instead, here I will interact briefly with some good comments that I got. I received exceptionally intelligent feedback from viewers on this one.
My model is too simplistic
One viewer said:
I thought this was a very intelligent comment. I don’t even disagree. But I take instruction from the tradition of Christians trying to persuade one another of the rightness of their respective readings, and I assume that if Jesus said, “Have you not read…?,” there must be better and worse ways of reading. The fact that I can’t right now persuade professing Christian X that his reading is eisegesis doesn’t mean I’m wrong (or right, I admit!); I am content in so many of these disputes to await the last day. The only reading disputes that could really lead to real-world “final” judgments are those that occur within institutions wherein I hold authority—a school classroom, a church. There might absolutely be circumstances in which a student gets an F or a parishioner gets excommunicated because I and others in authority disagree so profoundly with that student’s/parishioner’s given interpretation of scripture.
Even then, I might be wrong. And that student or parishioner might be justified on the last day. I’m comfortable with this reality. I just don’t let it lead me into exegetical pusillanimity or hermeneutical despair. I pray for illumination like it’s all up to the Spirit and work for understanding like it’s all up to me.
Exegesis and laypeople
Another commenter said:
I appreciated this, and this guy is a great writer. I’d like to meet him someday.
I think, in answer to him, that I’d draw a little distinction between hermeneutics and exegesis. I think that laypeople without the full suite of technical labels can still interpret the Bible well (hermeneutics). I just don’t think they’re going to be very persuasive when explaining their interpretation of specific passages to others who have that technical knowledge. And if exegesis is what I say it is—that is, placing labels on what really amount to intuitive elements of human communication, then the labels might be arcane, but the intuitive elements are not. I just doubt that those intuitive elements can really be seen well without knowledge of the labels.
I asked this commenter for an example of his second point and thanked him for stopping by.
My comment section
I still get the occasional drive‑by King James Onlyist. They almost never stick around long enough to have a meaningful discussion. Got this one today:
But I’m genuinely thankful for the comment section on my videos. There are lots of repeat customers, lots of thoughtful and edifying brothers and sisters. I especially love well‑written comments. They really delight me. I read practically every comment I get (though YouTube software automatically eliminates truly abusive comments, and comments with links, fwiw).
Special News
Hey, I’ve got a sneak peek for you, newsletter subscribers. This is the beginning of an upcoming video. I will be briefly getting back into discussing King James Onlyism on the channel, as I said I would nearly two years ago. And that’s because I have a new book that just arrived in the mail literally yesterday!