ZA MAGAZINE // seek truth.

Introduction

Communication. On the one hand, it’s so simple a child can do it. On the other hand, it is fraught with the potential for misunderstanding. At least in conversation there is always the possibility of questioning our audience to ensure that they have understood what we have been saying. When it comes to the written word, however, this insurance against misunderstanding is denied the author and despite his or her best efforts, their words can be massaged or outright twisted to be applied to instances the author never dreamed of.

This brings us to the Bible. Perhaps no other body of literature has been so abused in history as the sacred text of Christianity. It has not only been massaged gently but also forcefully bent and violently dismembered to make it say things that its divine and human authors never meant. Ironically, the greatest perpetrators of biblical vivisection are those who uphold it as the inspired and infallible word of God. When approaching the Bible we need to answer this question: am I going to read meaning into the biblical text or am I going to read meaning out of the biblical text? Or more practically, will I judge God’s word or will God’s word judge me?

Eisegesis

Eisegesis is the process of reading meaning into the biblical text and we derive the word from a form of the compound Greek verb ?????? (ace ago), “I lead into”. There many factors that cause us to read our own preferable meaning into the text of scripture, but the biggest cause is that we simply don’t like what God is saying to us through the Bible. When the meaning that scripture intends us to find is unpleasant, confronting, difficult to understand, challenges our view of God or the world, demands a response of repentance or promotes a worldview which is unpopular in culture, or all of the above, it is often easier to change what the text is saying.

This is the most dangerous form of eisegesis because, instead of a posture of humility before the Word of God, we assume one of pride and arrogance. Instead of allowing God’s word to change us, we change it. Not many of us would be so bold as to cross out verses in our Bible or tear our pages, but this is essentially what we are doing when we read into the Bible a meaning that we want to be there.

A classic example would be to look at the teachings of sexual ethics in the kingdom of God. It is hard to miss the references that show the incompatibility of sexual immorality and a relationship with Jesus Christ. But for a Christian who desires to have his cake and eat it too, a little eisegesis provides a short-term solution. Often, what can happen is that the term “sexual immorality” is redefined to “sexual intercourse.” After all, if it’s good enough for the President, then why not me? A new meaning is read into the text and now everything up to an including oral sex is on the table (you know what I mean).

Of course this might seem like a solution, but it isn’t one at all. This continued disobedience and slavery to sin has dire consequences. At the very least, it can impact the fruitfulness and growth of an immature Christian and perhaps ask tough questions about the Christian’s regenerate heart; that is, does he or she have one?

The prosperity gospel teaches its principles for health, wealth and relational success from the Bible, and it’s true to say that the Bible does talk about God as healer and provider and reconciler of men and women with each other. But eisegesis is just as much about the meaning that is read into the text passively as it is about the meaning read into it actively. In this case, the simple ignoring of passages in the Bible regarding the poverty, sickness and suffering of Christians shows just as much pride and arrogance as the redefining of sexual immorality to sexual intercourse. What is interesting to me is the overabundance of passages in the New Testament that talk about the suffering of Christians that has nothing to do with sin or lack of faith, but the very opposite! For example, 1 Peter is all about the suffering of Christians because of their faith and holiness.

A potentially less harmful example of eisegesis is the use of a biblical passage, often a narrative section, which we use not just to illustrate but also to validate what we are teaching. This happens very often from pulpits all around the world and is an example of reading meaning into the text. For example, I recently attended a conference where a pastor preached from Amos 3:3-5 which talks about the coming judgement on Israel. He, like many others, taught from this passage on the concept of unity because verse 3 says, “Do two walk together unless they agree to do so.” He went on to talk about how he had been captured by this concept of spiritual family like the prey of the lion (v4) and the bird in the trap (v5). It was a wonderful introduction to the rest of his sermon and was powerfully preached.

However, the passage he used has nothing to do with unity or being captured by the powerful biblical concept of spiritual family. Rather, it is simply and perhaps less inspiringly about cause and effect; that is, sin and judgement. Two people walk together because they agree, a lion roars because it caught something, a bird was caught in a trap because a trap was set and Israel will be destroyed because God will destroy her for her sins.

Why is this potentially less harmful? Because often the principle being taught is biblical even if the passage chosen does not support the teaching. Obviously it would be best to preach from a passage that does not necessitate eisegesis. Sometimes I wonder if the desire to be new, creative and different to other bible teachers, preachers and small group leaders means we find a passage with the express purpose of getting something ‘new’ and a little bit hidden out of it which really means reading something into it. What’s interesting is that many people lap up this new twist on a passage of scripture, regardless of whether the meaning was read into or out of it.

What makes eisegesis dangerous is the veneer of credibility that a concept receives having been taught from Scripture. It’s important to note that only correctly exegeted concepts have scriptural authority.

Exegesis

Exegesis is the process of reading meaning out of the biblical text and we derive the word from a form of the compound Greek verb ????? (ex ago), “I lead out of”. Whereas with eisegesis we position ourselves as sovereign over the meaning of scripture with exegesis we allow scripture to be sovereign over us and allow it’s meaning to confront, challenge, convict and change us.

One pitfall that I have noted regarding those who value the practice of exegesis is the tendency to value humility, or at least the lip service of humility, before the word but pride before others. In an effort to protect the misuse of scripture they set themselves up as policemen over correct biblical exegesis. This is not necessarily a bad thing as we need people in the body of Christ who contribute sound teaching and expose false teaching but there is a line somewhere that people can cross. In their zeal, the line that is often crossed is they talk about correct exegesis and give an example of an error and go so far the opposite direction of the eisegetes that they too become guilty of eisegesis. I have seen this in myself.

For instance, a well know missional theology cooperative posted a podcast on the science of hermeneutics, which is the next step taken after exegesis in applying the meaning of scripture to our lives today. In this podcast it was lamented how much of the church had been abusing the meaning of Proverbs 29:18 which says in the NKJV “Where there is no vision the people perish” and in the NIV “Where there is no revelation the people cast of restraint”. The accusation made was that this passage has nothing to do with the modern corporate concept of a vision statement to ensure the survival and success of an organisation and that people should stop using this verse to justify vision statements for churches.

While it is true there is nothing of the modern business world here in Proverbs 29:18 I do believe there is something much deeper, a biblical principle that says that unless the people hear from God they will be unfocused (and often that lack of focus leads to death).

I initially held that the story of Josiah and the recovered Torah in the temple (2 Kings 22), when used to preach about the state of so many Christians and churches who are entrusted with God’s word and have the appearance of religion, but have actually lost the power of God’s revelation, was a prime example of eisegesis. Is this passage a historical recounting of the precarious spiritual state of Judah only or is it also a statement on how Judah got to her spiritual poverty in the first place? If the lost word of God was a symptom only of where Judah was at with her covenant with God then to preach the above sermon would be an example of eisegesis, we would be attributing a cause to an effect. But if, as I now think, this part of scripture is also ascribing covenant unfaithfulness to a lack of intimacy with God, via his revelation, then it would be appropriate to preach a challenging sermon about how lost God’s word is in our lives and churches from this passage.

Conclusion

This is an introduction to some concepts regarding our approach to the Bible and some of the issues that are raised regarding these ideas. It might seem daunting and complicated, but there is incredible grace for us as believers today because we have a community that numbers in the thousands of millions and stretches throughout the millennia that has been seeking to live faithfully to God’s word. More importantly, is the fact that as followers of Jesus Christ we have His Spirit to bring to remembrance His teachings if we will humble ourselves before Him.

And that is the key to this whole eisegesis exegesis thing: if we allow God’s word to stand in authority over our lives then we are well on the way to preventing any further misuse of the Bible.