Eisegesis vs. Exegesis

Something that has been bugging me for a while, and I felt might be good to blogify is the irony that sits under the use of the word Exegesis.

First of all, let me grant a definition:
Exegesis - explanation or critical interpretation of a text 
Eisegesis - the interpretation of a text, using one's own ideas

These two words will be of particular familiarity if you have spent a reasonable amount of time around people actively engaging with the Bible. Why? Because the urge, especially amongst evangelical circles, is to get back to the true meaning of what the text says. The writer had an intention for the text, and so wrote it in a particular way, which builds upon itself into a logical book. The books in the Bible were not written contrary to understanding, but so that people could understand, examine, and meditate/think about them.

To this end, the encouragement is to be a good Bible reader. To be a good Bible reader is to come to it on its own terms. The easiest way to be a bad Bible reader is to listen to what people say about Christianity or its doctrine... open up the Bible... and read in everything someone else has said about the Bible into what its saying.




Being a bad Bible reader happens in several ways.
Firstly, it begins when you hear someone else make a comment about a text, or about Christianity in general. This might be someone speaking ill of it (eg. "It's homophobic", "God's a child abuser"), or it might happen when someone is speaking good of it (eg. "It's all about Love", "I like Jesus, he was all about looking after people and caring for others.") , or it could even be when somebody is interpreting a particular passage (eg. a Pastor gives a sermon on a particular passage)
When you accept (either consciously or subconsciously) that viewpoint (Because either it seems reasonable, or the person is trustworthy) and, upon coming up to a particular passage or topic, you assume that point into the passage.  Such is bad Bible reading.

Secondly, it begins when you interpret something yourself. This might be in a positive or a negative sense. The prior being, you've read the passage, and found that it is saying X, the latter being, you've read the passage and assumed it to be saying Y. Not that either is necessarily untrue. But when you later reapply that gleaned meaning over the top, it is unhelpful unless you first consider the passage for its own meaning, and then consider your previous understanding alongside it (ie. letting the text critique your interpretations).

Thirdly, I would contest, is when you don't interpret the text at all. This is where such dreadful approaches such as what I dub as the "Mr. Squiggle" approach to theology come from. When you grab bits of text haphazardly, and stick them in mashup to get the NIRVPF Bible - the "Newly Informed Revised Version, Personally Formatted". You've completely ripped the words out of the text, pooped on them, and then stuck them back together. (Sorry if you think that's harsh - but it is what you are doing! What value is text when you have absolutely no respect for how it is put together? Why read at all if you are only going to think about your thoughts anyway?)

The Fourth, is not reading the Bible at all. I am amazed at how many people are willing to say things on Christianity, and the Bible, and yet don't understand, haven't even tried to understand, or haven't even read their Bibles... Sadly, this includes some people who claim the title of "Christian", and even some Christians themselves.



So, what was the point of all the above? Well, as this blog is about Exegesis and Eisegesis, I feel central to the discussion and application of the idea is how you read a text.

So then, the irony...
I find it sad, painful, and deeply disturbing when people proclaim the need for the Exegesis of text, and yet turn around and perform Eisegesis themselves.

This was made quite plain to me one evening. I was discussing with a person about a certain topic... and he was lamenting about how certain people use Eisegesis to read certain things out of the Bible.
I completely agreed...
However, he then tried to argue his point in a way, and from a passage, which I did not feel was actually making that point - at the very least, the passage did not give the result he wanted via his line of reasoning. Perhaps, if he had given a more expansive argument, looking at terminology from throughout that particular literature, he could, via a roundabout way, arrive at his point - yet that was not what he was doing.
When I asked him about this, I did not feel the answer was forthcoming...

How is that, in refuting other people's Eisegesis of texts, we can turn around and use a text which is not actually making our point - it is entirely unseemly! It's almost as if, so long as you claim the morale high ground of Exegetical method, that we can say whatever we like. Yet, I believe, regardless of how "correct" your statement of theology is... you should never abuse Scripture when demonstrating that Theology. By all means, make your point - but if you're going to do it, do it via Scripture that MAKES that point.


It's a hard ask, I know. But as we come to the Scriptures... each and every time we should attempt to lay aside our preconceptions and read what the text is saying. The Bible is coherently written, and understandable, we should treat it as such. When we let our hobby horses be read into passages, our points may be perfectly valid, but we are mistreating the text.


2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17  that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

:)

- Owen