I find a lot of joy in good exegesis. I love to be able to be involved in the interpretation and then the application of the Bible. I respond to preachers such as Lloyd-Jones, John Piper and Terry Virgo because the have helped me understand the Bible. I so appreciate a good commentary that gives me insights into what difficult parts of the Bible mean, e.g. Beale on Revelation. I've spent much of my life trying to explain the Bible, to teach it and to help others to understand it. Sometimes people have said that I've made a difficult passage simple for them to understand - I am so encouraged when that has happened. But increasingly I've found myself wondering about some nuances surrounding exegesis.
Let me begin with the Millennium or the 1000 years of Revelation 20. What does it actually refer to? Pre-Millennialists tell us that it speaks of 1000 years when Christ will literally reign on the earth with his church. A-Millennialists tell us that the 1000 years are symbolic of a long period of time during which Christ reigns over his church from heaven. Which one is right? Good exegesis should tell us, but we have a problem in that outstanding exegetes stand in both camps on this issue and much as you might want to say: HE teaches this position there is always someone of equal merit and scholarship on this issue that allows someone else to say, but HE teaches the other position. Indeed I have often said that I can make out a really good case for both points of view. So while I personally end up in the A-Millennial camp I sometimes describe myself as having Pre-Millennial moments! But why am I A-Millennial? The answer I feel should be because of good exegesis, but that's the answer that Pre-Millennialists would give as well. So is there something about my temperament, or about my favouring particular teachers that embrace A-Millennialism or do I just kind of intuitively prefer the A-Millennial explanation that tips me that way? Is there something more to it then just straight exegesis? Arguably on this subject it doesn't really matter too much because whenever I make my presentation of the two positions I always end up by saying in the light of eternity it's not worth falling out about whether or not the church is on the earth for a 1000 years before the restoration of all things.
But take it up a notch. A few years back 3 young men approached me who had changed their minds from a charismatic to a cessationist viewpoint. Having once believed in spiritual gifts for today (and the ensuing conversations in fact fastened on tongues and prophecy) they now believed that these gifts as described in the New Testament died out with the Apostolic age. Obviously this is one to settle with good exegesis, but they had good exegesis as well and were remarkably well read on the subject and had a counter-argument for every point I made and even for every (including the most famous and brilliant) teacher that I quoted. We could not come to a point of agreement and believe me I tried. Now you may well feel that someone with the initials AW or someone else could have convinced them far better than I was able. That of course could be true but eventually I came to the conclusion that something was going on that was more than just winning the exegetical battle. They had been persuaded, they claimed, by good exegesis which of course was the very same claim for the convictions of my position. To this day it seems to me that there were certain things that somehow they just couldn't see, but of course that's exactly what they would say of me. I'm convinced I'm right, but they are convinced that they are right. For a reason that will become obvious later I want to stress they weren't emotional in putting their arguments, they simply, calmly and logically argued their position. Of course we can still return to the view that they should have spoken to someone more able than myself, but somehow I don't think anybody could have persuaded them to change their mind, it was utterly fixed. And while I could lament their fixed position I suspect that they would say the same of me. The point I'm making is that in a way I don't fully understand there are nuances to exegesis that can make it hard going to agree on certain subjects.
But the other issue I want to mention which is clearly on the boil once again is the debate between complementarians and those who take the egalitarian view of relationships between men and women. Compared with the Millennial issue it is more impacting for it affects the way we are working out life, marriages and the government of churches. And unlike the spiritual gifts issue which you could say, at least in my experience, was an intellectual exegetical debate this issue also brings in a good dose of strong emotions alongside the exegesis. I hold a complementarian view, but it's not the view that I hear and read described by those on' the other side' of the debate. I feel my emotions churned up about that, because internally I'm screaming, "but I don't believe that." That's important to me because it's a comment on how I treat my wife and what I believe about leadership in the local church. It can even make me feel I don't want to say what I believe because I'm going to be dismissed as out of touch and not understanding the position of women as I should. With such strong emotions being expressed on this subject its very easy to feel you are on the wrong side of the gender debate and therefore I ought to keep quiet. And of course egalitarians reading this are going to say, "well how on earth do you think we feel!" Emotional feelings tend to be exacerbated by the constant reference to equality with egalitarians getting emotional about the fact that they ( if a woman) are not regarded as equal while on the other side I'm feeling outraged by the fact that I and the others I know who are responsibly teaching complementarianism have never suggested or believed that women aren't equal with men. Of course this may well require all of us to define 'equality' but meanwhile the emotions are raw. Emotional language is used about setting women free while those of us who hold a complementarian view feel very deeply that for every women in Christ it is freedom for which they have been set free (Gal.5:1) Here's a quote from a women Pastor in America. This is taken unaltered from her Master's thesis: 'Well known complementerian frontrunners John Piper and Wayne Grudem reason that the Apostle Paul taught that the husband/father figure of each family is ordained by God to lead his household, wife and children. She and their children are to submit to his every rule, whim, and decision; life as they know it is a male dominated monarchy.' I think that is scandalous and puts me almost into emotional meltdown! Maybe someone could quote to me from somebody else's equally scandalous thesis on the other side - though I have my doubts about that one. But I'm labouring this not to say complementarians are the more misunderstood, as I know that would be the same feeling that egalitarians could have, but simply to make the point again that more than good exegesis is involved here, and what effect do our emotions have on our conclusions?
Where does this take us? I can only offer a few suggestions; others I'm sure could offer better ones:
Listen to one another - really listen.
Consider you could be wrong on a point of exegesis and keep an open mind until you can do no other.
Take particular care not to misrepresent the other side's position. Ask the question. Is this what you are saying?
Speak to men AND women on the other side of the argument.
Look for points of common agreement - we may be nearer together than we think.
Be careful of telling people who already agree with us that we've won the argument.
Avoid manipulating others by silence, emotion, or tears.
I've offered not one word of exegesis here, though I certainly have my strong exegetical arguments on all these subjects. But exegesis is not the only thing playing out in these debates.