A Challenge to the Common Reformed Interpretation of the Phrase "He Is to Examine Himself" in 1 Corinthians 11:28

 The interpretation of this phrase is not up for grabs. It is a matter of proper hermeneutics and exegesis. It is my contention that, historically speaking, the traditional Reformed view commits the fallacies of context replacement in the form of an illegitimate referential transference. In other words, to what the phrase, "he is to examine himself" refers is changed by going outside of the context, ignoring what Paul is telling the Corinthians to examine themselves about, and then reading into the phrase a host of references from either experience (i.e., what the phrase sounds like to the modern reader likely due to tradition or an ignorance of the context--thus, reading it as though it was an unmarked phrase without a contextual referent) or by illegitimately transferring concepts from other biblical passages into the text so that the contextual referents can be ignored and new referents can be assigned to the phrase. This, of course, changes the meaning of the phrase and the logical application of the passage.

So here is my challenge. Conduct the following experiment with yourself.

Experiment: 

You can only define what it means "to examine oneself" by using other verses in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. You cannot add anything. You must use the verses alone in the text. You must also do the same for any verse you use to support your conclusion as to what this text refers. In other words, you can only substantiate your interpretation if you do not add referents through eisegesis to any other verse in the context as well. So only the verses in the context can be used to reconstruct the logical argument Paul is making in the passage. 

If you have to go outside the text, either to your own understanding of the words due to what it merely sounds like to you or to use other biblical passages that Paul does not reach out for in this passage, then you are committing eisegesis not exegesis because eisegesis is to put something into the context that is not there already but exegesis is to draw out from the book or passage what is there. It must be concluded that if the traditional Reformed argument cannot be made unless the phrase is defined by characteristics foreign to the text itself, whether experiential or biblical, then it must be concluded that its argument rests on eisegesis. The interpretation I have given you in the previous post is completely exegetical, as I have not had to go outside of the passage to make my argument but have stayed with Paul’s argument from v. 17 to the end in v. 34.