This is a Latin term relating to correct Biblical understanding. It means literally 'to lead out'. In the context of studying the Bible it means to get out of the text what the text is saying. This may include a number of things to aid the process such as reading the context in the chapter, in the particular book as a whole eg. Jeremiah or Matthew and even where it fits within the whole Bible. It may also include cultural awareness, the timing of the writing, and identifying the author and even the target audience.

The term eisegesis is often used to contrast with exegesis. This means to 'read into' the text something that is not there and may often include the practice of de-contextualization or out of context quoting. In relation to the Bible (or any other piece of writing), the former is of course the correct method to achieve understanding, while the latter is not as it imposes a bias or personal view from the outside, rather than letting the document speak for itself. Answer Exegesis is a fancy word to say that my interpretation of the scripture is the "only" correct interpretation.

Answer For some further clarification of terms. The meaning of the word exegesis is really quite simple. Although it is commonly used in relation to the Bible, it could apply to any work of literature. In relation to a poem, for example, it would involve studying it to see what the author intended to say. Many times this would include studying other works by the same writer and even the historical background to see how certain terms are used and to give the context.

On the other hand, it is those who practice what is called eisegesis who are reading something into the text that is just not there. As has often been said 'a text without a context is just a pretext'.

In any case, the understanding of scripture is not a matter for private opinions, although people do of course differ, but it is essentially a matter of listening to what God would say. This makes it more difficult, but not impossible, for those who have anti-Biblical presuppositions for example, that miracles cannot happen, to understand it.

2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version) 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Answer Exegesis (as explained above) is useless. Allow me to explain; Two person reading the same text, employing Exegesis will arrive at a different interpretation depending on their conditioning (brainwashing?). Because, they will always be selective on verses that supports their conditioning and discard those that opposes it. See link on left "Selective Thinking". See also "Confirmation Bias" Comment on 'Selective thinking' and 'Confirmation bias' Neither of the above relate to exegesis. They are perfect examples of eisegesis or reading something into the text to suit oneself. The selectivity mentioned is notexegesis, since, to exclude something to suit oneself would tend to exclude the intention of the author which is the whole point of exegesis. See Discussion for further comment.

Definitions of Exegesis See the various 'Definition' Web Links to the left for the answer.

Re: "Comment on 'Selective thinking' and 'Confirmation bias' " Please see Discuss Question on left. Further Clarification On Exegesis One thing that needs to be clarified is the difference between exegesis and interpretation. The former is really letting the text, or the author speak, the latter often introduces the opinions of the person doing the interpreting. A good example would be the way in which Genesis 1 is exegised. Many would claim it is an allegorical story, while others claim it is meant to be taken literally. Both of these could be interpretations based on a persons pre-conceptions about origins. The question is what did the author intend to say or convey to the readers. In this case, much turns on the understanding of the Hebrew word 'yom' (day) and how it is to be understood in the context. Quite a number of those who 'exegise' yom to be an indefinite period of time actually admit that the text itself clearly indicates a 24-hour day but that their own presuppositions lead them to interpret it differently. They are thus being honest in admitting that they are imposing a view on the text which is not there. Ultimately exegesis is not an argument of 'my opinion versus your opinion' or anybody elses opinion except the author of the text in hand. It does not help to then push this back further to say that it is my opinion about what the author says versus your opinion about what the author says. Words have meaning in the context in which they are written. If we aren't prepared to listen to what the words say, what the author intended to convey, then we are imposing our view on the scripture, or any other work we 'exegise'. In many cases the type of literature in question would be relevant. It could be, as many are, a historical account. It may contain teaching, or personal reflection. It may be apocalyptic, or poetic. This will relate to how it is exegised as a historical passage will not usually contain instructions for living, except to relate instructions that were given to a person or persons, or nation as part of the historical record.

Similarly, in passages which give instructions we need to know to whom they are addressed and to whom they apply. For example, the law of Moses, especially the ceremonial religious laws were for the nation of Israel, and as such cannot easily be applied to other nations and times.

Passages which are prophetic in nature may relate to events in the near or more distant future as well as a message directed to the present. With predictive prophecy, the fulfillment may be partial, with a more complete one to come or totally in the future, as is the case with the Messianic prophecies.

Understanding the nature of the literature with which we are dealing can assist in correct exegesis, as can the correct understanding who it applies to.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company