Journal: Chafer Theological Seminary Journal
Volume: CTSJ 07:2 (Apr 2001)
Article: Reverse-Engineered Outlining: A Method For Epistolary Exegesis
Author: Timothy R. Nichols

CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 16

Reverse-Engineered Outlining:
A Method For Epistolary Exegesis

Timothy R. Nichols*

[*Editor's note: Timothy R. Nichols studied at Florida Bible College for three years, completing his degree, a B.S. in Biblical Studies, through Southeastern Bible College. He is currently in his third year of Th.M. studies at Chafer Theological Seminary. His email address is [email protected].]

Introduction: The Need for a Flinching Method

Imagine a young pastor, fresh from seminary and a few months into his first pastorate, analyzing a New Testament passage for his Sunday sermon. His diligence in Greek paid off, he enjoys exegesis. However, the meaning of one crucial prepositional phrase still eludes him. Out of ideas, he turns to several good exegetical commentaries. Only one discusses the phrase - the rest just gloss it over and move on to more important parts of the passage. Worse still, it does not support its position. What good are commentaries?

No exegete is a stranger to this experience. After painstaking hours of grappling with the passage, we discover that the commentator who mentions the problem just glosses over it. How can one who has not grasped the whole passage and all its parts claim to understand it at all? An honest exegete cannot dismiss a word or phrase as unimportant before knowing its exact meaning and relation to context. A good exegetical method ought to make it obvious when one bypasses the details of the text - it ought to flinch when the exegete glosses over the details.

What causes bypassing the details? Generally, it results from intuitive, top-down, big-idea thinking. The “exegete” repeatedly reads the passage, even in Greek. Then, as an intuitive leap, he sets forth the “big idea” of the passage. He views the passage through the lens of the big idea, asking what the details contribute to it. This method makes the big idea the primary control over details in the passage. This leads to glossing over or reinterpreting those details to make them fit. It becomes almost impossible for the text to surprise him, because he has already reinterpreted anything that might force re-evaluation. This also makes it hard to share the exegetical basis of his view with others, because his big idea was an intuitive leap. How can others analyze this person’s study to verify his conclusions?

CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 17

Multiple interpretations abound even in conservative circles.1 Is there really so much room for divergence? Scripture cannot be so vague. What accounts for this wide variety of opinions? That is, what controls the intuitive selection of the big idea? Frequently, the correc...