In biblical interpretation, these two terms are two possible approaches. Exegesis is the process of analyzing Scripture to see what it means. Exegesis views Scripture objectively. Scripture says what it means and means what it says. We just need to figure out what that is. You'll notice that the two words appear similar. The prefix, "ex" in the first word means "out of," so exegesis tries to take out of Scripture what is there, and the "eis" in the second word means "into". Thus, eisegesis is reading into Scripture. Eisegesis sees Scripture as subjective. The interpreter starts with his or her own presuppositions and reads Scripture through them. "It can't mean what it appears to say because that's not what I believe to be true."
Exegesis assumes the Bible is valid, complete, fully reliable ... "God breathed." If that is true, it makes no sense to bring our own preconceptions to interpret Scripture. A person might run up against a passage that goes against their own thinking. Exegesis would say, "Well, it appears that my own thinking ... is wrong." Eisegesis would say, "It can't mean that because I know ..." and there would be reasons outside the text to deny it. When exegesis says, "That's not what this text means," it's because of the text, the context, the whole of Scripture. When eisegesis says, "That's not what this text means," it's because of a prior commitment to something else -- my ideas, my beliefs, my understanding of the world, something, but not Scripture.
What can we derive from this information? Well, both methods will say at some point or another, "This is what that text means and that is not." Exegesis would say so out of a commitment to Scripture and the claim that it is God's Word. Eisegesis would do it out of a sense of personally superior knowledge not present in the Scriptures. All of us, at some time or another, will use both methods, some more one side than others. But the central question isn't my interpretation. The central question is whether or not Scripture is what it claims -- God breathed, and complete (2 Tim 3:16-17). Eisegesis suggests Jesus was wrong when He said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). And, if exegesis is going to work, we must always keep in mind that the best interpreter of Scripture ... is Scripture. That means we need to know Scripture. The better we know it, the better we can interpret it. But, maybe, you have more confidence in your own ideas and understanding. We all do at times. I would suggest that's a very dangerous place to stand. Let Scripture be true (Rom 3:4).
2 comments:
Watching someone come up with an interpretation of scripture that is completely the opposite of the plain meaning of the text, simply because they place their lived experience above everything else, is both painful to watch and amusing.
What's even worse is when you actively try to pit Scripture against itself. I watched one pastor trying to explain why the doctrines of grace were unbiblical and used Scripture to denounce other verses. I could see in the passages he used, his preconceived notions of Free Will influencing his usage of passages to deny other passages. The thing I like about the doctrines of grace is that they don't deny other passages of Scripture, but further explain and enhance them. Otherwise, Scripture is of no use for anything but a book of moralisms, and not sufficient for salvation.
Post a Comment