Introduction
Hermeneutics - the art and science of interpretation - requires faithfulness and hard work of pastors and theologians. Indeed, Christians, who are lay leaders or lay people, also have an equal responsibility to know and study the Word of God. If they are not called to full-time ministry, however, they do not get the same privilege of receiving a robust and theological training under experienced pastors or scholars and to be prepared for ministry as prospective pastors and theologians do. Certainly and specifically, pastors who are shepherding the flock and explaining the Scripture must “rightly [handle] the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15 ESV). Pastors get the special privilege of immersing themselves in studying the Word of God in its original language - Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Pastors should study and know the Scripture so that they can explain the text to the congregation. Nonetheless, however, pastors do make mistakes during the preparation of their sermons. They may make mistakes by misinterpreting the main idea of a passage, a word, or reading into the text with presuppositions, which is also called eisegesis. They risk themselves in committing what D.A Carson calls “Exegetical Fallacies”.
In his book, Exegetical Fallacies, D.A Carson is troubled because pastors and theologians are at risk in committing exegetical fallacies without recognizing them. Carson proceeds in listing out various interpretative fallacies, explaining what the fallacies mean, providing examples of such fallacies, and explaining why they are exegetical fallacies. In reading this book, it is beneficial that the readers gain sufficient knowledge in Biblical Greek - its language and its grammar. Carson carefully and logically explains exegetical fallacies with technical terminologies in Biblical Greek, grammar, linguistics, and philosophy. His style in writing the book is academic and scholarly.
I have greatly benefited in reading Exegetical Fallacies. Reading this book was very tough for me because it contained strong vocabulary and terminology that I was not familiar with. I had to wrestle with the logistics of Caron’s arguments. There were a lot of moments while reading where I had to reflect upon my experience in exegeting a passage. In this assignment, I will only identify three specific exegetical fallacies that I may tend to fall into. In identifying them, I will explain what each of the fallacy is, the examples that are given by Carson, my personal reflections upon it, provide examples in my personal experience (if possible), and ways to avoid committing this fallacy. Additionally, I will use the plural noun, “interpreters”, to refer to pastors, theologians, and scholars.
The Aorist Tense
On page 68 of Exegetical Fallacies, Carson begins the discussion of the second category: “Grammatical Fallacies”. In this category, the first of the fallacies is called, “the aorist tense”. Aorist tense refers “to the action itself without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressive, instantaneous, past, or accomplished.” Carson references Frank Stagg’s writing, “The Abused Aorist”, in order to make a critical argument on how aorist tense should function.
The issue that emerges from interpreters is the idea that aorist tense only has a single function. Carson writes, “competent scholars were deducing from the presence of an aorist verb that the action in question was ‘once for all’ or ‘completed’.” Although aorist tense has been described as the punctiliar tense, nonetheless, grammarians recognize that it is not always used as a specific action point that happened only once in the past.
In Scriptures, sometimes an aorist tense is used as a specific action that happened only once in the past. In the example given on page 68, in 1 Corinthians 5:7, it says, “for Christ our passover lamb was sacrificed”. “Was sacrificed” is the aorist tense for ετυθη (etuthe). Indeed, Christ died once for all at the cross (Hebrews 10 also affirms this).
On the other hand, Stagg provides numerous counterexamples where the aorist tense is not always used as a completed action, but I will list out a few that stood out to me:
“these all died (απεθανον [apethanon]) in faith” (Heb.11:13) - but clearly not all at the same time!
“guard yourselves (φυλαξατε [phylaxate]) from idols” - which clearly does not mean that if we have guarded ourselves once, the danger is over.
“that he might show (ενδειξηται [endeixetai]) in the coming ages the incomparable riches of his grace” (Eph 2:7) - which clearly does not mean God will display his grace just once in all eternity and get it over with.
Upon further reflection, I am deeply amazed at how complex the Biblical Greek language is, especially in dealing with a single tense. As I studied Biblical Greek with a Professor Emeritus at my church, aorist was initially confusing to me. For me to understand it easily, I would assume aorist is simply past tense or an action that was done in the past. Knowing this concept of the aorist tense, would I commit this fallacy? When reading the English translation and carefully interpreting the passages, I would never have imagined that my English Bible would mask a lot of subtle nuances in dealing with the aorist tense. With one of the counterexamples given by Stagg, it is obvious to me that Hebrews 11:13 does not mean the saints in the Old Testament all died at the same time.
I have properly understood the function and the usage of the aorist tense. For sure, I learned that it is not only a “completed” action in the past. In order for me to avoid making an exegetical fallacy, I think reading the entire context of the passage is key to exegeting the passage faithfully.
Improperly Handled Syllogisms
On page 94 of Exegetical Fallacies, Carson advances to the next discussion of the third category: “Logical Fallacies”. In this category, the fourth of the fallacies I want to interact with is called, “Improperly Handled Syllogisms”. A syllogism is a logical argument whereby it applies deducing reasoning that contains a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For example, the major premise is that A is C; the minor premise is that B is C; therefore, the conclusion is that A = B.
Syllogism needs to be used with extra care. Carelessly using syllogism in biblical exegesis can lead to a sloppy logic argument, which then leads to a logical fallacy. During a conversation with my family members, we discussed getting a new car for my mom. We filtered our options to find the best suitable car for her. Someone used syllogism, unknowingly, to make an attempted rational decision. His major premise was that my mom enjoys watching Korean drama. His minor premise was that Hyundai (an automobile company) is made from Korea. The conclusion, therefore, is that my mom would enjoy driving a Hyundai car. Using syllogism to decide to finance a new car for my mom may not be the wisest strategy. It is an inadequate argument because my mom may enjoy only some parts of Korean culture. Similarly, Caron illustrates another syllogism that contains an erroneous conclusion:
All dogs are animals.
A cat is an animal.
Therefore a cat is a dog.
Caron is not against using a syllogism to make logical arguments. He does caution, however, that interpreters would phrase the premise carefully and properly. He states that “syllogism holds only if A is not identical with B. But if there are good reasons for thinking that A = B, then [the] argument will not work.”
I reflected upon the example that Caron used, such as Romans 10:9-10. He does not support arguments like these:
Whoever confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart will be saved.
Mary Jo is saved.
Therefore Mary Jo has confessed with her mouth and believed in her heart.
or, better:
Whoever confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart will be saved.
Mary Jo has neither confessed with her mouth nor believed in her heart.
Therefore Mary Jo will not be saved.
I do not often use a syllogism to draw out inferences on a passage. With the passage on Romans 9, I would appreciate it if Carson can draw out more theological implications on Soteriology even though his focus is on proper exegesis. After reading this section, I asked myself some questions: “Is it biblical for a person to receive salvation without confessing Jesus as Lord? Is confessing Jesus as Lord part of the Gospel presentation? Would Christians live in carnality if they do not recognize Jesus as Lord?” These questions indeed bring out the issue of Lordship Salvation, but I digressed. Since Carson was dealing with a logical fallacy, I would need to constantly practice exegesis in order for me to notice myself committing exegetical fallacies. Because this concept is relatively new to me, I would need to further reflect on this section in the future.
Fallacies Of Question-Framing
Finally, on page 105 of Exegetical Fallacies, I am continuing the discussion on the third category: “Logical Fallacies”. In this category, the seventh of the fallacies I want to finish the discussion with “Fallacies Of Question-Framing”. This fallacy deals with the way questioners frame the question whereby “the questioner has imposed his or her understanding of the situation on the person being questioned.”
Carson briefly deals with this section. For example, “when did you stop beating your wife” is an irrelevant question if the situation never happened in reality. The questioner presupposes that the situation actually happened without asking “did you beat your wife before” (I think that’s a better way to frame the question). Additionally, he cautions interpreters to not frame a question where there is a dichotomy and it demands a choice between two answers. For example, was Paul a legalist or an antinomian?
I struggled with framing questions. This particular section helped me to carefully ask the right questions without committing an exegetical fallacy. Whenever I do exegesis, I usually ask myself, “What does this verse mean?” I think framing that question is more open-ended rather than close-ended.
Final Thoughts
I take 2 Timothy 2:15 very seriously, for it says, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” Exegetical Fallacies is a book that I would want to revisit and make references. I want to pursue with great diligence to seek God’s approval. This “approval” is not speaking about salvation, but one that has been tested and approved by God. One of the tests is to “rightly handling the word of truth” or the “word of God”. I desire to give my maximum effort to study God’s word completely, accurately, and clearly so that I can communicate His Word to the congregation. Precision and accuracy are required in biblical interpretation because I am handling God’s word. Therefore, I do not need to be ashamed when correctly handle His word. However, I should be ashamed if I mishandle His word. There is an end-time nuance in this verse because of the word “approved by God”. Like interpreters, Timothy will stand before God and give an account of his life. Teaching or preaching is especially dangerous because teachers will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1). As I am in Immerse being trained for pastoral ministry, I want to be very careful with what I teach because I will also give an account “for every careless word” that I say (Matthew 12:36).
