Many Christian and Jewish scholars will use the phrase “proper exegesis” when teaching on topics from their Scriptures, especially if they are refuting an opposing position. One huge element of the meaning of exegesis is: “examination of general historical and cultural contexts surrounding a specific text in order to extract applicable meaning and interpretation”. You can see how exegesis of scripture comes into play by considering this example: Two Christians are arguing about whether or not a Christian should obey the Written Torah of Moses. The Christian opposed to the idea, says, “We know the Torah isn’t for us because it was given to the Jews, not to us.” The other Christian responds, “Well, Jesus taught his disciples to walk in the Torah, so we should too since we are His disciples.” The other Christian responds, “Well, His first disciples were Jews, not Gentiles!” The Christian opposed to following the Torah was applying what he would consider “proper exegesis” of the scriptures based on his knowledge of the historical contexts and recipients of the Torah. But what if his knowledge of the greater picture is blurred not by a false context, but an absent context? When historical facts are absent, context is intrinsically blurry. What if many so-called “Gentiles” (goyim), are actually Hebrew, non-Jewish descendants of the so-called “Lost Ten Tribes of Israel”? With that added possibility or probability, the first Christian’s proper contextual exegesis cup is bumped a bit. Some would say his entire glass of exegesis is knocked over (And I would have to support that view).
Posted on: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:46:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015