Hermeneutics and eisegesis

[Scott Bushey]

In a recent thread on Paedobaptism, I was charged w/ eisegesis when I made mention that the fact that we see no children (under the age of adulthood) coming to faith and receiving the sign of the covenant is important when discussing the validity of paedobaptism. My emphasis was placed on the culture of the Jews in the book of Acts and how they saw their children in light of federal headship. I was told that I 'am reading too much into the text'.

In my opinion, a sound hermeneutic would be to consider the culture of the people we are discussing. Do u agree?

 

[Taylor]

It was R. L. Dabney’s point that denying children the covenant sign would have caused a historic uproar that changed my mind, since we see no uproar recorded anywhere.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

See Berhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Chapter VI: Historical Interpretation.

For example, in the section Demands On The Exegete, he writes:

b. It will be incumbent on him [the exegete] to reconstruct, as far as possible, from the historical data at hand, and with the aid of historical hypotheses, the environment in which the particular writings under consideration originated; in other words, the author’s world. He will have to inform himself respecting the physical features of the land where the books were written, and regarding the character and history, the customs, morals and religion of the people among whom or for whom they were composed.

...

d. Moreover, he will have to transfer himself mentally into the first century A.D., and into Oriental conditions. He must place himself on the standpoint of the author, and seek to enter into his very soul, until he, as it were, lives his life and thinks his thoughts. This means that he will have to guard carefully against the rather common mistake of transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century. If he does not avoid this, the danger exists, as McPheeters expresses it, that “the voice he hears (will) be merely the echo of his own ideas” (Bible Student, Vol. Ill, No. II). His rule should always be that he, “non ex subjecto, sed ex objecto sensum quaerit.”​

 

[Grant]

In my opinion, a sound hermeneutic would be to consider the culture of the people we are discussing. Do you agree?

Scott,

I agree with you. I think it is a great point. Quite frankly, I myself have never thought of it before it that specific way. Thanks for adding another reason (to my own brain) for holding to the Paedo position.

I always try to put myself in the mindset of a faithful Jewish man, molded by hundreds and hundreds of years of passing the sign to the children, when I read Peter's sermon in Acts 2 and the household baptisms. Further, if the Jews still wrestled with the "shadow" of eating unclean meat, then I think they would have also needed NT correction if passing the sign to their infants was indeed a "shadow" (and further sinful), especially since Moses almost lost his very life.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

It was R. L. Dabney’s point that denying children the covenant sign would have caused a historic uproar that changed my mind, since we see no uproar recorded anywhere.

Just as a side note: there actually was an historic uproar, so to speak, in Acts 21:20-21 where news got all the way back to the Apostles in Jerusalem, "And they said to him [Paul], "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs."

In other words, the believing Jews were in an uproar who were informed (mistakenly) that Paul was teaching "no more children" are to have the covenant sign placed on them if they are believing Christians in the covenant of grace. Jews would certainly be in an uproar on that.

The elders, lead by James, quickly squashed that. "Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law," (Acts 21:23-25).

 

[Tom Hart]

Ignorance of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written, while of course not essential for salvation, are to a serious interpreter too important to be discarded.

When I was younger, and something of a fundamentalist, any notion of cultural context for the Bible offended me. "The Bible is God's Word," I reasoned. "What could culture have to do with it?"

I might suggest that it is perhaps a fundamentalist reflex that lashes out against anything bearing a hint of careful scholarship. To a fundamentalist, it seems like liberalism. At least, such was the case for me.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The cultural and OT context is important. The Jews had no problem protesting when they felt God's Word was being violated (as Matt pointed out above, I never noticed that particular verse before in this context!). That fact alone provides an important supporting point in defense of infant baptism. The primary basis is grounded in the nature of the covenant in both testaments. The covenant promise is made both to believers and their children in both. Hence the logical implications work themselves out, and we see the supporting references throughout the rest of the NT (i.e. household baptisms, children are "in the Lord" and "holy" in some sense, baptism replacing circumcision, etc.)

 

[Dachaser]

In a recent thread on Paedobaptism, I was charged w/ eisegesis when I made mention that the fact that we see no children (under the age of adulthood) coming to faith and receiving the sign of the covenant is important when discussing the validity of paedobaptism. My emphasis was placed on the culture of the Jews in the book of Acts and how they saw their children in light of federal headship. I was told that I 'am reading too much into the text'.

In my opinion, a sound hermeneutic would be to consider the culture of the people we are discussing. Do you agree?

I think that all of us here to varying degrees read back into the scriptures our preconceived notions. there is no direct scripture proof that children and infants were water baptized in the NT under trhe NC, so we would tend to read back into the situation what we think would have be going on at that time.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I think that all of us here to varying degrees read back into the scriptures our preconceived notions

David,
Is God a God of covenanting? Are any covenants abrogated? What I post is not based on any 'preconceived notion' or pressuposition, but biblical facts. Will God ever destroy the world with water again?

Children have always been important to God and His covenant. To disregard this fact is to assault God's covenant and federal headship!

so we would tend to read back into the situation what we think would have be going on at that time.

Again, why do we not see any mass baptisms of already circumcised Jews, prior to the 1st century church?

Can u imagine for the moment, the day before Christ gives the commission, my son is born. We circumcise him on the 8th day. On day 9, the Apostles tell me the circumcision and the covenant no longer mean anything; we are to do absolutely nothing any longer with our seed. In light of Gen 17 (to all generations), what am I to think? For thousands of years, we have placed the sign. Now, the sign has changed to water, but we no longer apply it to our seed. It is highly inconsistent with the mind of God and His word.

Circumcision did nothing to those who rec'd the sign other than setting them apart. Ishmael, Essau etc. had the sign; Their parents knew the fact that they were not of 'the promise' and yet, still were obedient to the command.

We can see examples in the NT where the sign was placed erroneously on people who laid claim to Christ and yet, over time, showed their true colors. The sign is just that. A sign, whether it be bloody or water. It sets the person apart for the bride.

 

[Dachaser]

David,
Is God a God of covenanting? Are any covenants abrogated? What I post is not based on any 'preconceived notion' or pressuposition, but biblical facts. Will God ever destroy the world with water again?

Children have always been important to God and His covenant. To disregard this fact is to assault God's covenant and federal headship!




Again, why do we not see any mass baptisms of already circumcised Jews, prior to the 1st century church?

Can you imagine for the moment, the day before Christ gives the commission, my son is born. We circumcise him on the 8th day. On day 9, the Apostles tell me the circumcision and the covenant no longer mean anything; we are to do absolutely nothing any longer with our seed. In light of Gen 17 (to all generations), what am I to think? For thousands of years, we have placed the sign. Now, the sign has changed to water, but we no longer apply it to our seed. It is highly inconsistent with the mind of God and His word.

Circumcision did nothing to those who rec'd the sign other than setting them apart. Ishmael, Essau etc. had the sign; Their parents knew the fact that they were not of 'the promise' and yet, still were obedient to the command.

We can see examples in the NT where the sign was placed erroneously on people who laid claim to Christ and yet, over time, showed their true colors. The sign is just that. A sign, whether it be bloody or water. It sets the person apart for the bride.

The preconceived understanding that I would bring into reading the NT scriptures in regards to this discussion would be that the NC was indeed new in some sense, and that thos eunder its outworking would be those who are in truth the redeemed of the Lord.

This just supports my position that all of us will bring to the scriptures our own notions that at times will be hard to overcome and have just what the scriptures teach, I am thinking right now more about how I had to resist bringing Pentacostal theology into the Bible when I read especially Acts, as the Lord needed to show to me that not all of my theology was right.

 

[Scott Bushey]

its outworking would be those who are in truth the redeemed of the Lord.

U mean like Demas, Anannias and Saphira and Simon Magus???

 

[timfost]

Good exegesis should not introduce a new doctrine without warrant. The culture absolutely comes into play, and the similarity between the Gen. 17 and Acts 2 as would have been heard by the Jews is no exception. The OT visible church consisted of the household-- husbands and wives, children and servants. The NT defines the church the same way-- the household was baptized. Paul and Peter give instruction to the same groups in their writings, calling them the church. God's people were considered holy in the OT. The children of at least one believing parent are considered holy (1 Cor. 7). If there is no specific example where this principle was changed, good exegesis should work according to a doctrine that promotes the unity of the church in all ages.

Especially considering the Jewish culture of the time, such a change in the household principle would need to be quite carefully spelled out.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Good exegesis should not introduce a new doctrine without warrant.

Yes. That.

Appeals to culture can also be erroneously used as cudgel while missing other cues in a pericope that discount such appeals. For example, sometimes the appeal to culture is used to argue phenomenological positions, where no such arguments are signaled in the text.

Which is to say that understanding the culture at the time is necessary, but not sufficient in proper hermeneutics.

 

[De Jager]

I think that all of us here to varying degrees read back into the scriptures our preconceived notions. there is no direct scripture proof that children and infants were water baptized in the NT under trhe NC, so we would tend to read back into the situation what we think would have be going on at that time.

What do you mean by "direct scripture proof"? I feel like you are looking for an explicit statement either saying "the disciples baptized babies", or a command saying "you must baptize babies". Of course such a statement is not to be found.

However, there are many things that we believe that are not supported by a specific statement. As far as I know, there is not one mention of women taking the Lord's supper in the NT - are we to conclude that women are not to take the Lord's supper? No, because in the absence of a specific statement we use logic and reason - verses such as "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female..." and then apply that to the case of the Lord's supper. The WCF calls this using "good and necessary inference". It is the application of biblical principles that leads us to the position of household baptism (including children).

Historical context is important. At the time of the writing of Acts, the Church had a 2,000 year history of applying the covenant sign to households, regardless of the spiritual status of the individual members, if the head had faith. This is essentially what is illustrated in Genesis 17.

In fact, unless we were told otherwise, we would expect the sign of circumcision to continue in the NT era - however we are told otherwise - Jesus clearly institutes baptism, and the example of the apostles is that circumcision is no longer required. Baptism is now the sign of membership in the church.

Similarly, unless we were told otherwise, we would expect the proper subjects of the sign to remain the same unless we were told otherwise. Here is where the NT is not only not silent, but in fact affirms the principle of headship found in the OT, and we see several household baptisms. The headship principle continues. It is the presence of household baptisms in light of the 2000 year history of applying the covenant sign in this way that leads me to believe that baptizing covenant children is Biblical.

 

[Dachaser]

you mean like Demas, Anannias and Saphira and Simon Magus???

No, those who have really been redeemed and saved are included in the NC.

 

[Dachaser]

Good exegesis should not introduce a new doctrine without warrant. The culture absolutely comes into play, and the similarity between the Gen. 17 and Acts 2 as would have been heard by the Jews is no exception. The OT visible church consisted of the household-- husbands and wives, children and servants. The NT defines the church the same way-- the household was baptized. Paul and Peter give instruction to the same groups in their writings, calling them the church. God's people were considered holy in the OT. The children of at least one believing parent are considered holy (1 Cor. 7). If there is no specific example where this principle was changed, good exegesis should work according to a doctrine that promotes the unity of the church in all ages.

Especially considering the Jewish culture of the time, such a change in the household principle would need to be quite carefully spelled out.

The family of God would be just those who have been redeemed by Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Dachaser]

What do you mean by "direct scripture proof"? I feel like you are looking for an explicit statement either saying "the disciples baptized babies", or a command saying "you must baptize babies". Of course such a statement is not to be found.

However, there are many things that we believe that are not supported by a specific statement. As far as I know, there is not one mention of women taking the Lord's supper in the NT - are we to conclude that women are not to take the Lord's supper? No, because in the absence of a specific statement we use logic and reason - verses such as "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female..." and then apply that to the case of the Lord's supper. The WCF calls this using "good and necessary inference". It is the application of biblical principles that leads us to the position of household baptism (including children).

Historical context is important. At the time of the writing of Acts, the Church had a 2,000 year history of applying the covenant sign to households, regardless of the spiritual status of the individual members, if the head had faith. This is essentially what is illustrated in Genesis 17.

In fact, unless we were told otherwise, we would expect the sign of circumcision to continue in the NT era - however we are told otherwise - Jesus clearly institutes baptism, and the example of the apostles is that circumcision is no longer required. Baptism is now the sign of membership in the church.

Similarly, unless we were told otherwise, we would expect the proper subjects of the sign to remain the same unless we were told otherwise. Here is where the NT is not only not silent, but in fact affirms the principle of headship found in the OT, and we see several household baptisms. The headship principle continues. It is the presence of household baptisms in light of the 2000 year history of applying the covenant sign in this way that leads me to believe that baptizing covenant children is Biblical.

I would still see the NC as being something new, as those who would now be seen as being actually part of the NC would be those who have been saved and are now indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit. I do not see how we baptize as a dividing issue, nor an essnential of Christianity, as both of us would see water Baptism as a sign of the activity of god in the life of a person. I just would see it as a definite work done for one who has confessed Jesus is Lord now.

What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?

 

[Grant]

I do not see how we baptize as a dividing issue, nor an essnential of Christianity, as both of us would see water Baptism as a sign of the activity of god in the life of a person.

While Baptism is not essential for SALVATION it is essential to CHRISTIANITY. David, covenant signs are of upmost importance to Christianity......this is how God relates to us...this is how God reminds us of his promises! Rainbows, Circumcisions, Baptisms! Surely you see this brother.

What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?

Well for one there is obedience and spiritual blessings mentioned in Proverbs (as one example) in following the precepts of the Lord.

Your position...says that my Child without a doubt is LOST until a defining profession. Who is to say when the Lord actually gives a Child a new heart? WARNING DAD BRAG:My youngest daughter (4) is already showing signs of conviction..of being able to recognize right & wrong according to God's word...she already sings her own imaginative songs about honoring the Lord and asking for forgiveness. She knows the answer to 44 catechism questions! Who am I to say she is a heathen..when she already demonstrates in small sweet ways that the Lord is molding her heart.

This past Mother's Day..she actually corrected my own mother and said "Gi Gi today is not Mother's Day, it's the Lord's Day"...haha (she be hardcore) END OF DAD BRAG

Now I don't know if she has experienced the "New Birth", but I will presume her to be a Child of God (because of God's promises) until she proves otherwise by her fruit.

 

[Scott Bushey]

o, those who have really been redeemed and saved are included in the NC.

So, you can see that the sign is placed without any proof of those people actually being:

its outworking would be those who are in truth the redeemed of the Lord.

Do you see the contradiction???

 

[Scott Bushey]

I just would see it as a definite work done for one who has confessed Jesus is Lord now.

U mean like, Demas, Annanias, Saphira and Simon magus???

What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

If you are consistent, you will see in gen 17 that to forsake placing the sign of covenant upon your seed, they are 'cut-off'.

 

[Dachaser]

While Baptism is not essential for SALVATION it is essential to CHRISTIANITY. David covenant signs are of upmost importance to Christianity......this is how God relates to us...this is how God reminds us of his promises! Rainbows, Circumcisions, Baptisms! Surely you see this brother.


Well for one there is obedience and spiritual blessings mentioned in Proverbs (as one example) in following the precepts of the Lord.

Your position...says that my Child without a doubt LOST until profession. Who is to say when the Lord actually gives a Child a new heart? My youngest daughter (4) is already showing signs of conviction..of being able to recognize right & wrong according to God's word...she already sings her own imaginative songs about honoring the Lord and asking for forgiveness. She knows the answer to 44 catechism questions! Who am I to say she is a heathen..when she already demonstrates in small sweet ways that the Lord is molding her heart.

This past Mother's Day..she actually corrected my own mother and said "Gi Gi today is not Mother's Day, it's the Lord's Day"...haha (she be hardcore)

Now I don't know if she has experienced the "New Birth", but I will presume her to be a Child of God (because of God's promises) until she proves otherwise by her fruit.

There will be those holding to both sides in this discussion until the Second Coming happens, and I feel comfortable in allowing for those differences to remain among us, as we are still one in Jesus Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

you mean like, Demas, Annanias, Saphira and Simon magus???

What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

If you are consistent, you will see in gen 17 that to forsake placing the sign of covenant upon your seed, they are 'cut-off'.

We are now a new and better Covenant, as per Hebrews though.

 

[Scott Bushey]

We are now a new and better Covenant, as per Hebrews though.

Hebrews was comparing the old covenant (covenant of works) with the Covenant of Grace.

For example: Moses et. al. were saved by the (n)ew Covenant.

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


Hebrews 7:19
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hebrews 9:22

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 10:1

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

 

[Dachaser]

Hebrews was comparing the old covenant (covenant of works) with the Covenant of Grace.

For example: Moses et. al. were saved by the (n)ew Covenant.

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


Hebrews 7:19
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hebrews 9:22

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 10:1

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The Old Covenant was until the time of Jesus, as John the Baptist was the last prophet under the OC .

 

[timfost]

The Old Covenant was until the time of Jesus, as John the Baptist was the last prophet under the OC .

David, do you know how Demas, Annanias, Saphira and Simon magus fit into a biblical timeline? All Scott is saying is that these people had NC baptisms, yet were showing by their works to be unbelievers.

Baptists admit that they sometimes do baptize unregenerate people. Even from a Baptist point of view, baptizing anyone necessitates some charity of assumption-- the assumption that they are actually regenerate and their words are sincere.

Why not assume a judgment of charity to the children of believers? Are they not part of the household?

 

[Ben Zartman]

Again, why do we not see any mass baptisms of already circumcised Jews, prior to the 1st century church?

Are you not counting John the Baptist's work, when multitudes went to be baptized of him?

But to your OP, certainly culture must be taken into account when reading Scripture--but we must also admit that we have no real context for understanding exactly what a 1st century Jew would have thought or felt. At best we can collate all the available data and make an educated guess, which at this far remove of time and with all our cultural prejudices and preconceived notions I wouldn't hang a great amount of weight on.
Even so, we can argue that the 1st century Jew would have understood that with the change of covenant terms, and the change of covenant sign (by the way, wasn't it some years before Paul would mention that circumcision and baptism are similar? Why do we assume that it was obvious at Pentecost?), there would also be a change to the application of the sign. Since unlike Old Covenant inclusion, New Covenant inclusion wasn't merely by being born, the early church Jew would have seen and understood: "Here is a better thing: eternal life offered clearly, not in shadow; New Birth the entrance into the people of God, not just physical birth; physical ancestry not meaning anything (think not to say to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father') compared to spiritual ancestry."
It is just because of their cultural and religious context that the believing Jew would have seen and understood the change of sign from only males physically born to all people spiritually born. I believe they would have seen the comparisons and contrasts between the OT people of God and the better thing that they were typifying--the NT people of God, or should I say the true people of God in all times: those who are circumcised in heart.

 

[Scott Bushey]

We are now a new and better Covenant, as per Hebrews though.

U do understand that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had the same benefits we partake of in this 'new' age?


Philippians 3:9

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Everyone, outside of Christ remains in the C of Works. What Paul is saying above is that all those people who remain in the C of W's are living by the law, having 'their own righteousness', which is faulty-even to their damnation. The writers who cite the law and contrast it to the new are contrasting law keeping and personal works vs justification by faith alone. It couldn't be anything else. The New Covenant is better! However, that 'better' is witnessed by everyone who fall under the gospel and embrace Christ-this to include Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

When Christ said, 'it is finished', He was referring to the work he was sent to accomplish on the part of the elect. This work, dates all the way back to Gen 3.
The New Covenant and the C of grace, (in my opinion) are synonymous in many ways; In time, it is a dispensation that occurs at Christs resurrection and the consummation is completed.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Why not assume a judgment of charity to the children of believers? Are they not part of the household?

Because Baptists see no warrant to assume anything of their children but what God declares: that they were shapen in iniquity; that they are sinners and under the wrath of God unless and until He is pleased to give them new hearts. Their parent's salvation does not save them! It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.
It has even been argued by Baptists that assuming the child's regeneration breeds presumption. And presuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Why do we assume that it was obvious at Pentecost?

Hey Ben
I am not assuming that at all. In fact, just the opposite. The transition I speak of took much time and diligence.

"Here is a better thing: eternal life offered clearly, not in shadow; New Birth the entrance into the people of God, not just physical birth; physical ancestry not meaning anything (think not to say to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father') compared to spiritual ancestry."

Disagree. Israel was a country of covenanting w/ God. God remains a God of covenant, no matter how many credo's claim otherwise. The scriptures are one book. We see no abrogation of signage. No covenant is abrogated.

t is just because of their cultural and religious context that the believing Jew would have seen and understood the change of sign from only males physically born to all people spiritually born. I believe they would have seen the comparisons and contrasts between the OT people of God and the better thing that they were typifying--the NT people of God, or should I say the true people of God in all times: those who are circumcised in heart.

Ben,
But this is no different in any epoch of the gospel! What you are saying above was just as valid for the OT saint as the New.

 

[Scott Bushey]

He is pleased to give them new hearts.

An old testament concept!

Their parent's salvation does not save them!

An Old testament concept. Salvation never came through familial lineage!

And presuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.

U mean like how all credo's baptize confessors by 'presumption' and some fall away???