Understanding the Bible : Are you IN or are you OUT?

Exegesis

Eisegesis

Hermeneutics

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis

Exegesis – is an approach to reading the Bible that involves pulling information from what it says. You
are trying to learn what it means by reading what is actually there.

It is digging into the bible to discover it’s real meaning (Ex – out of).

You let the text itself reveal what the writer is revealing to the reader or the original audience.

Eisegesis – is an approach where in we insert our own ideas into what it says. (Into). It is an
interepretation that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like rather than the meaning of
the text.

Example:

Say you’re trying to solve a mystery of some sort. Someone stole your $25 gift card, and you want to find
out who.

Exegesis would analyze all the clues presented before drawing a conclusion about who took the gift
card.

Eisegesis, on the other hand, would draw a conclusion about who took that gift card based on your own
bias. Maybe you just simply don’t like the tone in which your teenager speaks to you, so maybe she took
it. Or you’re just mad at your spouse that day, so they obviously stole the card from you.

You blame them, only to find out later that they probably weren’t the ones to take it. Even if they had,
you didn’t use the right or most correct approach to discovering the truth.

Eisegesis often leads to wrong conclusions and can lead many astray.

Who are most susceptible to this practice? Those who like to proof-text.

Can you show me an example in the Bible?

Absolutely!

Consider, for a moment, Philippians 4:13:

“I can do all things through Him who strengthens me”, NASB

A rallying cry, right?  I mean, doesn’t that just get you fired up to go take on that sporting
event/triathlon/big test/job interview? HE strengthens me, and I can do this! Except…

10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you
were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity.
11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be acontent in whatever circumstances I am.
12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and
every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance
and suffering need.
13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
14 Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.

Phil 4:10-13, NASB

Philippians 4:13 is coming from a standpoint of contentment – being content in all things, even things as
bad as being stuck in a prison,  having lost everything, and getting by on the day to day. Paul is speaking
directly to the fact that he is OK with where he is and that he can get through it because God
strengthens him. He is not saying “I will break out of this prison, because God’s strength is behind me”
he is saying “I will endure, and be content, because God’s strength is behind me. There is nothing that
can take that away from me.”

Another example:

A notorious example of this kind of eisegesis is the following chain of passages: “Judas… went away and
hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). “What you are about to do, do
quickly” (John 13:27). These three verses are unrelated to each other, but throwing them together in
this haphazard way almost sounds credible.

The process of exegesis involves:

1) observation: what does the passage say?

2) interpretation: what does the passage mean?

3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and

4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves

1) imagination: what idea do I want to present?

2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? And

3) application: what does my idea mean?

Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each
other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning.
Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . .
He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did
not enter the temple of the LORD.”
EISEGESIS
First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The
interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father
Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so
he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to
the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would
continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’
training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did
Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values.
And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration.
However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong;
in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.

EXEGESIS
First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of
both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that
King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and
offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20).
Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died”
(2 Chronicles 26:21).

Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus
13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other
passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not
enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly
usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total
obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Of course, exegesis takes more time than eisegesis. But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who
correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is
the only way.

We need to be very careful here, so let me state a clarification at the start. There is an important
principle in reading the Bible that states: let Scripture interpret Scripture. At least two ideas flow from
this. Negatively, Scripture will never contradict itself; therefore you cannot infer a meaning in one text
that clearly contradicts another. And positively, we should read every portion of Scripture in the light of
all the rest of Scripture.
That clarification being made, the danger here is reading into one passage an idea from another passage
that is simply not there. My application of Jeremiah 29:11 in the video above is a classic example of this
sort of eisegesis. This verse, snatched from its context, has been taken as God’s promise to every
believer personally, reflecting a biblically sound truth, namely, that God has ordained all your days
according to his purpose and so your life is secure in him. These truths are found in such passages as:

Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that
were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

—Psalm 139:16 ESV

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never
leave you nor forsake you.’ So we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can
man do to me?'

—Hebrews 13:5-6 ESV

The issue is that these truths are not the point of Jeremiah 29:11. It is not a promise addressed to every
believer individually, but to Israel as a nation in exile. That is not to say this text has no application to
you as a believer this side of the cross. Russell Moore gives a helpful summary of a proper application of
this verse with a consideration of its full context.

Jeremiah 29:11 must be read in the context of the whole Book of Jeremiah, and the Book of Jeremiah
must be read in the context of Israel’s story. But then all of Jeremiah and all of Israel’s story must be
read in the context of God’s purposes in Jesus Christ. All the promises of God "find their yes in him" (2
Cor. 1:20)...

Through Jeremiah, God is telling the exiles that their scattering isn’t accidental. God has plans for them,
plans that include even what seems chaotic and random. Moreover, these plans mean the exile isn’t
permanent…

God has a plan for you, in Christ. That plan is not for your destruction but for your wellbeing. You are
being conformed into the image of Christ—by sharing in his suffering—and your ultimate end is not as a
victim but as a victor, a joint-heir with the King. How can you know this? You can know it the way the
exiles of old did: not by observing your present condition but by the Word of God, his oath and his
covenant. That means your plans may evaporate. Your dreams may be crushed. Your life may be snuffed
out. But the God who raised Jesus from the dead will raise you up with him.

2 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

1. What would this have meant to the author?

2. What would this have meant to the original reader it was meant for?