I have a question concerning exegesis. This is a new concept to me as I am becoming more involved in religious history and doctrine.
Good stuff, there's a lot worse things you could turn your mind to!
On another forum, they're telling me there is only one way to interpret the Bible, though exegesis.
That's right. To understand what (I would assume) they mean, let's look at the word itself. It's from the Greek,
exgeisthai, is a verb meaning "to interpret" and it comes from the root
ex meaning "out" and the verb
hgeisthai, "to lead" — so the role of the exegete is to lead the person out of the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding.
Acts 8:26-31
"Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza ... And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia ... reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said:
And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
This is a Scriptural example. Philip was one of the first deacons of the Church, trained by the Apostles themselves in the proper understanding and interpretation of Scripture. The Spirit leads him to this encounter, so we may assume that the charism (the spiritual gift) of the exegete works through him.
The Ethiopian, a highly educated man it would seem (he's in charge of the treasury, the Queen and country's wealth), has the wisdom to realise that because he can read Scripture does not mean he will fully understand it.
So do the people/churches who believe as they do all agree that exegesis is the way to understand the Bible?
In general, yes.
The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, "personal interpretation of a text (in this case the Bible) using your own ideas". We have no guarantee that we have the right interpretation of Scripture, we would have to be infallible to say that.
Today many believe eisegesis is the way, but look at it differently, arguing that it matters not what Jesus meant, but what it means to me.
And if so, do those who interpret the Bible different not believe in exegesis, or do they also claim to practice proper exegesis?
They would claim to practice proper exegesis. They claim the proper interpretation, which others do not have, or have distorted.
What I'm getting at, can two churches with two different of interpretations of even just one verse, both claim to practice proper exegesis?
Yes.
Who has the final claim on what is or isn't proper? Or is it a matter of opinion just like anything else?
Well here I declare my utter bias. I am Roman Catholic, so I'll give you an answer from my point of view.
If you read the Gospels, it seems evident that the full implication of what Christ meant when He spoke was not easily understood. So He called a group of men together as His close students, and taught them this deeper meaning.
If you read Acts 2, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles inaugurated the exegetical mission of the Church. Peter spoke to the crowd, and thousands were converted. Acts details the activities of Peter and Paul, but Acts also clearly indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who leads and guides the Church, through the Apostles, and on through their chosen successors.
So the Apostles are the first to be empowered, by the Light of the Holy Spirit, to be exegetes and thus to lead the people from darkness to that Holy light.
I would argue then, that the Apostles taught their successors, and they in turn passed this teaching on. This is what 'tradition' means — "to hand on". So for me, I want to know what the Apostles taught (exegesis) and not what someone thinks of what the Apostles taught (eisegesis).
For me again, that cuts the list back to: Roman Catholic, Greek, Oriental and other Orthodox churches ... we all share the same exegetical understanding. Where we differ is in its theological implications. We all believe in the same thing, we express it differently. (Other ancient churches, such as the Nestorians, we believe to have got it fundamentally wrong, they teach something that is different from what they were taught and broke with the tradition. They would say their teachers got it wrong, and chose to go their own way.)
At the Reformation however, Martin Luther, a very troubled and pessimistic young man, rejected the traditional interpretation of Scripture and introduced a radically different idea — it is not God's will that all men will be saved. He made his case to the Church but lost the argument ... but he, too, decided to break with tradition, and go his own way.
Within a few years one church had become many — now there was the Lutheran, the Calvinist ... each claiming a different exegesis as the authentic teaching, each insisting that those who went before, and their contemporaries, had got it wrong.
And it's been going on ever since.
So you takes your pick.
For me, I get as close as I can to the source. It seems a safer bet to rely on those who got it from the horse's mouth, rather than from those who have a personal opinion of what the message means.
But that's me. You must find your way.
And good luck with that, too!
Thomas