(cross posted at the Spectrum Blog. Check out the conversation there.)
In seminary, I learned from Dr. Jon Paulien the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.
It’s hard to believe that these were new words to me just over 10 years
ago. The difference between these two words is vitally important for
anyone who wants to read and interpret the Bible (I’ll just say here
without defending it that you can’t read the Bible without interpreting
it. Perhaps this is a subject for a separate post). But it is
especially important for pastors who read the sacred text week-by-week
and lead their congregations in the interpretive exercise of preaching.
Wikipedia says that eisegesis is
the process of misinterpreting a text in such
a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text. This
is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws
out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads
his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be
objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as
highly subjective.(1)
Eisegesis can be a trap for pastors. Faced with having to preach a
good sermon every week (and not every-so-often), we can sometimes get
the process turned around backwards. I have fallen into this trap many
times. I know my congregation well – better than anyone else – and I
know what I want/need to say to them. But I know that the worship
service is a time to open God’s Word with people, not just give my
opinions, so I need scriptural authority. We can find ourselves looking
for the right text to support what we want to say. The text might be a
good fit, or not. But the process is fraught with danger. Dr. Paulien
taught us that to get beyond our own defense mechanisms regarding the
text – the ways we psychologically shield ourselves from what we don’t
want to hear – we needed to take a more objective view. Read in the
original languages. Understand the author’s original intent, not just
what “I think” it means to me as a self-actualizing, self-referential
individual. I learned these lessons well and my sermons (I think) have
been consistently better since that time.
I have learned, however, the process of interpretation is infinitely
more challenging than this. Interpreting scripture is never a matter of
simply discovering the meaning of the text and giving it to a modern
group of people. This became so much clearer to me in a recent staff
meeting. We are attempting to build what we call a “community of
interpreters” at the Hollywood Adventist Church. This means that I am
not the only one who preaches. The preacher doesn’t own the text or
control the text. If we believe our own rhetoric, the scripture lives
in the community. So, we’re helping each other be better interpreters.
Recent Comments