Skip to main content

Exegetical Axioms (Part 1)

I am currently in my 2nd semester of NT Greek. We have just passed the midpoint in 1 John. Translation from actual Biblical text has been a refresher. My teacher, whom I have appreciated greatly, offered 2 exegetical axioms to us today. Here they are:

(1) If the author had no other choice (of a word/phrase) to use, it [his choice] is probably not significant.
  • The point being made is, alot of times huge emphasis is made on the word choice of a Biblical author. It behoves us to ask the question, "Is this really significant?" or "Would the original writer/readers have seen it as important as we are making it?"
  • Sometimes a writer, such as John, will use a different verb tense or a different way of addressing his readers. Sure, the words have meaning, but maybe not all the implicit significance that may be imagined.
(2) Rely on your mother tongue when answering exegetical questions.
  • This axiom is not as hard and fast as the first, but it must be a general principle. When reading, if you notice an odd difference in verb usage, preposition choice, etc. (hopefully examing the Greek), it is needful to put the idea into a contemporary English setting.
  • For instance, when telling a story, there are many ways to go about the task. You can use linear verbs to pull the reader into the situation. (So, I was walking down the hall...) You may choose to say "I walked down the hall." Here, the use of past or present tense has no significance. This is just one small example. I hope it is cleary seen how we, as readers, can imagine greater significance than what the author originally intended.

I hope to post more of these as I come across them in class. For me, I believe the Word of God, the revelation of Himself, is so precious that we should be meticulously careful in how we exegete. We must be careful that we "accurately divide the word of truth." (I Tim. 3:15) Oh yeah, I almost forgot that part about studying to show ourselves approved. Hmmm....

Popular posts from this blog

SportsDesk - 06.25.09

It's official. Shaq is a Cleveland Cavalier. Let the Cleveland nickname offerings begin! Here are some thoughts to consider with this move: The NBA East has officially become as interesting and exciting as the West. The Magic, Cavs, Celtics, Heat and Sixers are as fun to watch as the Lakers, Nuggets, Blazers, Mavs, and Hornets. This trade is the last straw for Cleveland to land LeBron in Summer 2010. If the Cavs don't win the title, LBJ will become a NY Knick next Summer. It's a done deal. The Shaq acquisition doesn't solve any long-term problems for Cleveland. He'll be there one year. Shaq doesn't have 3 years of productivity left. If he wins a title next year, he should retire a champion. I don't see Cleveland giving him a 2-year contract at the end of next season. If LBJ and Shaq "leave" Cleveland next summer, which big free agent star comes to Cleveland in the wake of LBJ? I don't see Wade doing it. Bosh doesn't fit the mold. If Clevel...

No Zion, No Problem? Not So Fast.

Everyone in the media has wanted their piece of the pie with Zion this year. Each highlight reel dunk and spectacular block has only increased the media fervor and number of followers. As Duke looks to face Syracuse, and presumably Virginia Tech as well, without Zion, let's consider what Duke looks like without Zion, and what it must do against Syracuse to leave the Carrier Dome with a W. DUKE WITHOUT ZION Duke without Zion is not a cart without a horse. But it might be a sports car without its turbo. Or maybe a chef without her secret sauce. Here are the main points to consider: MAIN POINTS - A Five Spot 1. Without Zion, Duke can’t play “position-less basketball” since all bench players have limitations. Not only is Zion our best two-way player (offense and defense), but he also allows the greatest roster flexibility in terms of building around him. He wreaks havoc wherever he is on the floor. We don't have another player like that, certainly not from the bench...

Favre Talking Points

I was a closet Green Bay fan in high school, mainly because of some big-time Packer fans in my church. Granted, it was easy to pull for them, since they weren't rivals with America's Team -- that's right! What intrigues me the most is that three teams took different approaches to Brett Favre, and I believe they would've have been mistaken to respond differently. Packers were criticized (as was Favre) for not letting Favre come back. I'm sure there are still some detractors that would say Favre would've won more games than Rodgers (6). What's interesting is that Aaron Rodgers QB stats (other than wins) were better than Favre's. The point is that, the Packers weren't going to win the NFC last season, with or without #4. They could be a Super Bowl team in 2-3 years. The Packers made a great move by parting with Favre. It couldn't have happened better for them. Jets are a bit more troublesome to parse apart. The only thing that makes them look foolis...