ver at Alan Knox’s blog, a lengthy discussion has resulted from a post of his called “The Church or the Organization?“. One of the things that has occurred in that discussion is some confusion about what is “exegesis” and what is “eisegesis”.
Now, for those of you not familiar with those terms, let me define them briefly for you. “Exegesis” is the process by which we determine what a particular text means. While all of us come to a text (especially a biblical text) with certain presuppositions, the goal of the exegete is to minimize the impact of those presuppositions on our interpretation, allowing (as much as possible) the text to speak for itself. Ideally, the meaning of the text should actually change our thinking if our previous conclusions were incorrect.
“Eisegesis”, on the other hand, is the opposite process. It is reading back into the text what we think the text is saying. It is taking our presuppositions and imposing them on the text to the point that we may actually come away from the text with an entirely incorrect understanding.
It is not always easy to tell the difference! Sometimes our traditions have influenced us so strongly that we are so sure that what we read in Scripture supports our traditions. It’s very hard to tell the difference between what we presuppose, and what the text actually says.
This can result in two types of errors (generally speaking). One error is that we can minimize the text by reducing its actual message. The other error is that we can make the text say more than it really says.
Let me give you an example. This is not to open up this particular can of worms again, but just to illustrate the point. Recently, I blogged about the different views of the timing of the rapture. One of the passages that I referred to is John 14:3. In my explanation of that verse, I pointed out that Jesus does not say that He will return to take us to heaven. However, I have read defenses of a pre-trib rapture that state that. This is a case where we make the text say more than it really says.
So, what is the process by which we can minimize the effects of eisegesis and actually strive toward more accurate exegesis? Well, there are several things to keep in mind. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it meant to even be thorough in its explanations, but just a nudge in the right direction.
- When seeking to understand the meaning of a particular word, first examine the usage of that same word within the immediate context. “Immediate context” might include the chapter (artificial as that subdivision is) in which the word appears, or better yet, the book itself.
- Secondly, examine the usage of that word by the same author, if that author wrote other books. This is especially helpful in situations where you are examining Paul’s use of certain words.
- Next, examine the usage of that word by other biblical authors.
This first part of the process of exegesis sometimes can help us understand the meaning of a word or phrase without having to go too much further. But sometimes the word or phrase at hand doesn’t appear very often, or in some cases, only appears once in the entire Bible.
The example that came up in the discussion over at Alan’s blog is the Greek word kubernesis. This word appears in 1 Corinthians 12:28 in a list of spiritual gifts. It is translated in the NASB as “administrations”, but no explanation is given. (The KJV uses the word “governments”.)
In this case, we don’t have other usages in context, or by the same author, or by other authors in the Bible. This is a one-time usage by Paul. So, what is the next process to incorporate into our exegesis?
- When supplied with a definition by a lexicon or some other source, test that definition against the immediate context.
- See if the same author deals with similar concepts, or in any other way explains how he would view the definition at hand.
- Test the definition against the rest of the teaching of Scripture to see if it is consistent with other revelation.
This is where it can get a bit trickier, but care and humility are definitely needed. The definition given to kubernesis is “governing”. It has been stated in the thread over at Alan’s that it is a naval term referring to “ship steering”. This is then carried even further by a commenter there to say that since pastors are the ones responsible for “steering the ship” in a local body, this gift applies only to pastors. Furthermore, this gift plays out in that God gives each pastor a “vision” for that local body, and that vision becomes paramount in that church. All other giftedness apparently is only valid in the sense in which it supports that vision.
So, let’s test this against some things, and see if this is valid exegesis, or if it is, in fact, eisegesis.
Does the immediate context connect kubernesis to pastor? No. In fact, “pastor” is not even mentioned in this chapter, or the entire book of 1 Corinthians, for that matter. This connection is not gathered exegetically, but is eisegetically forced back into the text.
Furthermore, how does Paul view value in certain gifts? Does he emphasize “leadership” in his discussion of spiritual gifts? Hardly. Check out this section of the very same chapter:
[I]t is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor 12:22-25, emphasis mine)
So, the idea of “ship steering” as a position to determine the entire direction of a church does not even seem to hold up against Paul’s own context. Furthermore, the idea of a “local vision” is not to be found in the New Testament. Nor is the idea that God will give a vision (even if such a concept of “local vision” was warranted) to one person within the body that the rest of the body must support and follow.
What is the vision for the church? Maturity. Unity. Disciple-making. Mutual edification. These are all aspects of God’s design for the church which are clearly supported by Scripture. Whatever kubernesis means, we cannot afford to put weight on it that contradicts the rest of the teaching of the New Testament.
Let us always strive to let the text speak first before we assume to know what it means. Only then can we have the humility and grace to learn what God has revealed to us through Scripture and separate our traditions from actual revelation.
Until next time,
steve 
Steve,
Good explanation. This is what I’m trying to do as I study the text of Scripture concerning the church. I have a thought that I have been chewing on. In Scripture, we see points of data about the church (or another topic). We then draw lines to connect those points. Now, there are sometimes several ways to connect those points.
What happens, though, when we stop living and believing according to the points, and we start living and believing according to the lines that connect the points? I think we saw this happening in the early history of the church leading up to the medieval church. I think we are also seeing it now.
I’m trying to define the points through exegesis as you described. Sometimes, that means I need to differentiate between the points and the lines (traditions, customs, rituals, etc.). This is not always easy. Sometimes it means exegeting without thinking past the immediate passage under consideration. Somtimes it means accepting Scripture as we find it, without looking too far ahead to the implications, while recognizing that there are (sometimes far-reaching) implications.
I think I may post on this sometime soon… after I have more time to think it through.
-Alan
Steve (and Alan),
Great points! It’s so easy to get caught up in what onw can read or hear others saying without taking the time to slow down and really see what the Word is saying. I have the opportunity to work with kids and young adults quite a bit. Often times I’ll ask them what does the text say. They will quite regularly pop off a “standard” eisegetical answer that a simple reading of the text doesn’t even come close to having. I’ll then follow it up with a “where does it say that” type of question and asthey re-read the text they realize that what they have said isn’t really there at all! It’s amazing what happens when we really strive to let the text speak without speaking for the text.
In Him,
-marty
Steve,
Well done … the following may prove uesful in regard to your research on ‘kubernesis’…
1Corinthians 12:28
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues”. (ASV)
Hath set (ἐÌθετο)
See on 1Co_12:18. The middle voice implies for His OWN (emphasis mine) use.
Miracles
Note the change from ‘endowed’ persons to ‘abstract gifts’, and compare the reverse order, Rom_12:6-8.
Helps (ἀντιληÌμψεις)
Rendered to the poor and sick as by the deacons. See on ‘hath holpen’, Luk_1:54.
Governments (κυβεÏνηÌσεις)
Only here in the New Testament. From κυβεÏναÌω to steer. The kindred κυβεÏνηÌτης shipmaster or steersman, occurs Act_27:11; Rev_18:17. Referring probably to administrators of church government, as presbyters. The marginal wise counsels (Rev.) is based on Septuagint usage, as Pro_1:5; Pro_20:21. Compare Pro_11:14; Pro_24:6.
Ignatius, in his letter to Polycarp says: “The occasion demands thee, as pilots (κυβεÏνῆται) the winds.†The reading is disputed, but the sense seems to be that the crisis demands Polycarp as a pilot. Lightfoot says that this is the earliest example of a simile which was afterward used largely by christian writers – the comparison of the Church to a ship.
Hippolytus represents the mast as the cross; the two rudders the two covenants; the undergirding ropes the love of Christ. The ship is one of the ornaments which Clement of Alexandria allows a Christian to wear (“Apostolic Fathers,†Part II., Ignatius to Polycarp, 2).
Steve,
I’ve been doing some interesting reading recently that sheds some new light on this subject.
Peter Berger coined the term “plausibility structure” for the epistemological assumptions of a culture. Lesslie Newbigin expanded on this in his book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Tim Keller uses the concept to analyze the “defeater beliefs” of particular cultures that are based on their “implausibility structures.”
[I'm trying to give a quick background for my point. I am dealing with this in more detail over at my blog.]
The Church has been greatly shaped by the Enlightenment plausibility structure. Those theologians who were swept up in this Tsunami became the classic Liberals in the 19th century and the Jesus Seminar people at the end of the 20th century.
[I still haven't gotten to my point.]
The Enlightenment culture still has a great deal of influence in the Evangelical Church. Even our approach to exegesis often unwittingly adopts Enlightenment values.
So here’s my point: While we need to make sure that we are not doing eisegesis, we also need to be aware that our approach to exegesis can smuggle in eisegesis even in the way we do our “objective” exegesis.
Here’s a quotation from Newbigin:
I find this analysis fascinating (and dead on). As I said, I’m trying to work through some of this at my site. I’d be interested in your comments (and those of your readers).
God Bless,
Rod
Forgive me if I’m risking a thread jack (I’ll try to keep this short to minimize the risk). I believe there’s an essential question underneath this issue that should be asked. What is it that seduces us to misunderstand the Scriptures (to eisegesis)? Some answers have been presented above, our theological tradition (though misunderstanding the Scriptures to support a theological view is a form of lying), our culture and our ignorance of Biblical cultures. I suspect that a deep part of the seduction is because we don’t ask how God communicates to us through the Scriptures. If we don’t probe the how then we can misunderstand what the Scriptures are (Rod’s post hints at this). In my own tradition (I’m a Presbyterian pastor) we sometimes act as if the Bible is a set of propositions. Even a very careless reading of the Scriptures will show that the Bible is clearly not a set of propositions!
Alan, you wrote: What happens, though, when we stop living and believing according to the points, and we start living and believing according to the lines that connect the points?
This is an excellent question. If I could take it a step further (or maybe this is what you actually meant), we often start believing that the lines are, themselves, the points.
This is, I believe, where tradition often becomes unhelpful. Tradition ends up becoming the assumed truth without question, and then we end up with a cycle where people take those points and connect them with new lines, which eventually become the points themselves, and the cycle (spiral) continues.
marty, you wrote: I’ll then follow it up with a “where does it say that†type of question and as they re-read the text they realize that what they have said isn’t really there at all!
This is a great exercise, and I think we should all be doing this on a regular basis. This is not to say we can’t be certain about what we believe. But realizing that our beliefs might need to be refined from time to time is, in my opinion, healthy. Call it post-modern if you will, but I just think it’s good.
Imagine if no one had been willing to rethink their assumptions about who the Messiah was to be! They were expecting a national king — a political leader. But they were wrong.
By the way, Marty, do you blog? If not, why not?
John Purcell, nice to have you here commenting, too. I appreciate your insights, and you’ve given me some stuff to think about. Thanks for taking the time to share.
Rod, very, VERY interesting points you bring up. You said something that I was trying to communicate in my post at one point, but you said it so much better:
This is so good! I believe that the foundational solution to this “dilemma”, if you will, is humility and a willingness to take our time with interpretation. I confess that I am sometimes quite guilty of running with a new interpretation or insight without taking the time to thoroughly test and evaluate it.
Craig, glad to have you here, too. Yet another pastor reading and commenting here. That continues to amaze me every time another one comes along!
Your comment is in no way a “thread jack”. It’s actually quite relevant, I believe, to this topic, and touches on something that is very, very close to my heart.
In my own tradition (I’m a Presbyterian pastor) we sometimes act as if the Bible is a set of propositions.
Yours is far from the only tradition that does this! In fact, I think most of us at this point in history (at least in Protestantism) have inherited this tendency. I’m not sure if the Reformation is to blame, or just modernism in general, but I’m grateful that we’re seeing a movement away from it.
And it’s very encouraging to me to see pastors like yourself (and just about every pastor that comments here has demonstrated this, in my opinion) recognize the danger in staying there at the propositions.
Even a very careless reading of the Scriptures will show that the Bible is clearly not a set of propositions!
I had to laugh when I read this!! So well-said
Thanks again for commenting and sharing your input. Nice to have you in the conversation.
By the way, Rod, I was expecting you to tell me about something that Dallas Willard said that had bearing on this
hehe (just teasing, brother)
This is a good post, Steve, and a rule of thumb that we should all follow when interpreting Scripture.
If I may point out, though, there is a difference between drawing a conclusion based on interpretation of scripture and eisegeting meaning into it (say…the pre-trib position for example).
Steve,
Thanks for the warm welcome. I’ve done a little searching for a blog where real discussion takes place, and I was very impressed by the humility, insights and compassion I found here.
Let’s push my example a little. Suppose a friend informs us that she intends to do a thorough study of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. She explains that she’s going to analyze every sentence of Hamlet to find all the propositions (abstractions of sentences which are true or false). At the end of the project she’ll have a complete list of everything taught (affirmed) by Hamlet. We would, no doubt, be appalled and want to protect the great bard from such misuse. Now suppose the same project is proposed for a mathematical proof. Here it seems more appropriate. What could possibly move us to want to treat the Scriptures this way? I don’t know the historical answer to that question but I suspect it’s because we want our theology to have the same kind of certainty that we admire in mathematics. Is this not a sure fire formula for eisegesis?
Gordon, thanks for the comment, brother. I thought you might take issue with my example there, and I seriously didn’t want to stir that up again.
I will say that you are absolutely correct in the difference between using passages of Scripture to draw a conclusion vs. true eisegesis.
My personal opinion, however, is that the pre-trib position ends up being eisegetical because of its circular nature of proof. For example, because the timing of the rapture is never given as pre-trib, inferences are made (such as the absence of the word “church” in Revelation 4 through most of the rest of the book meaning that the church is absent) and then other passages are interpreted based on those inferences.
That’s why I used John 14:3 as an example, because I have heard it stated that Jesus promises to return and take us to heaven. That is not stated anywhere, though, and so to interpret John 14:3 as such results in eisegesis, in my opinion.
I wasn’t going to go there, but since you persisted…
hehe
Craig,
I’ve done a little searching for a blog where real discussion takes place, and I was very impressed by the humility, insights and compassion I found here.
Thank you, sir. That is very gracious of you! How long have you been around, if I may ask?
…we want our theology to have the same kind of certainty that we admire in mathematics.
Yes, this appears to be true in many cases. Many people equate “uncertainty” (for lack of a better term here) in particular beliefs with a lack of faith. I disagree, though. I think that the object of our faith (i.e., Jesus) is something (or someone) of which we can be absolutely certain. But many other things may shift or change in our thinking as we continue to seek the truth.
Also, I believe that many people want to be told what to believe, rather than work through it for themselves, and propositional teaching “fills that need” very nicely.
Me, personally, I want to learn from what I can search out myself (owning it, so to speak), the questions that others ask, the different opinions out there that sharpen my own iron, etc. And I don’t want to tell others what to believe in minute detail, but ask questions and encourage them to seek answers on their own.
This is a great post, as usual Steve! I am currently in the process of reading through the gospels and trying as best I can to not read them with any preconceived notions. It’s hard, having grown up in church
Just a side note … you said, “What is the vision for the church? Maturity. Unity. Disciple-making. Mutual edification.” … I wholeheartedly agree and wonder where the modern concept of “the vision” came from?
Heather, I just saw in your comment on Alan’s blog that you and Brandon are not coming next weekend to the SEBTS conference after all??!?! UGH – I can’t tell you how bummed Christy and I are about that.
We were looking forward to the opportunity to love on y’all and encourage y’all!!
So, this means that you need to plan a trip to Boone in the very near future. When can we put you down on our calendar?
Oh, and thanks for the comment here
LOL
Steve -
I know, I am so BUMMED!!!!! It’s just not a good weekend to get away
… and then I got the email about you playing at ASU on the 12th … I love classical music and bummed about that as well. Okay, so we’d love to plan a trip to Boone … I’ll check with Brandon (I’m sure he’ll read this) and see when would be good …
~Heather
Steve,
I assume you’re asking how long I’ve been a lurker at your blog and not how long I’ve been around on this earth. I found your site yesterday and after reading several posts and some of the comments, I decided to join the conversation. My search was started because a friend, who is not a Christian, asked me if I knew of a good Christian blog. I was, of course, rejoicing for the interest and proceeded to hunt for a place where we could both participate. That has proved to be more difficult than I would have thought.
I don’t think it’s so much certainty as opposed to uncertainty as it is two different kinds of certainty. I’m certain that Jesus is the way the truth and the light. I’ve bet everything on him. My certainty is a relationship.
It’s true that many people want to be told what to believe. The question I like to ask is why? Those people are not so different from you and me. Is it just that they don’t want to do the work of exegesis? Perhaps. Could it be that they are looking for some other ground besides the Word, something to make Jesus more safe?
Craig, yes I was referring to your relationship to this blog and not your age!
Glad you understood that! hehe
My certainty is a relationship.
Amen!
Could it be that they are looking for some other ground besides the Word, something to make Jesus more safe?
I think this gets to the heart of the issue.
You and your friend would be welcome here anytime.
Blessings,
steve
OK, Steve, if your logic in identifying eisegesis is accurate, how is my pre-trib conclusion based on the absence of “church” from Rev. 4-19 different from your conclusions concerning the office of pastor? Most of the arguments you have presented have been based upon the silence of scripture rather than the mandate of it.
I’m just sayin’…
Gordon, feeling a little feisty tonight, are we?
hehe
Funny guy, you are. If you’re at all serious, despite the wink, I’ll be happy to answer the question (because I believe there is a legitimate answer). But if you’re “just sayin’…” for the sake of a joke, then I won’t bother!
I don’t mean to open that can of worms again, I’m just wondering how do we tell when the rule applies and when it doesn’t.
As best as I can tell, eisegesis=eisegesis and conclusions=conclusions.
Gordon, I think that sometimes they overlap. And sometimes it’s very hard to tell the difference between the two.
And quite honestly, my conclusions can be challenged as eisegesis, so I’m not throwing out your comments. However, I do think there are some differences.
One of the significant differences is that I’m arguing for the absence of the office of pastor (not pastors themselves, but a vocational office in a hierarchical system) because of the complete absence of such in the entire New Testament. Traditional interpretations of such passages as “Preach the Word” get read as “vocational pastor’s job”, but the text doesn’t say that. The “office of pastor” simply does not exist in the New Testament.
The rapture timing question is quite different, however. In the rapture issue, there are passages that say things like “after those days of tribulation” the elect will be gathered (remember the similarities I posited between Matthew 24 and 1 Thess 4), and “our gathering to him…cannot happen until” the tribulation events. Yet, the pre-trib position looks at the silence regarding “church” in Rev 4-19 and says, “Aha! The church is not mentioned, so it must have been raptured out.”
Then, that same position looks at John 14:3 and says, “This is referring to Jesus returning to rapture the church and take them to heaven.” This simply goes beyond what Jesus actually said. And therefore, I see it as eisegesis. Reading meaning back into John 14:3 that is based on conclusions drawn elsewhere.
Additionally, even the passages that I referenced (Matt 24 and 1 Thess 1:8, etc.) are then eisegetically forced to say something that they don’t say. In my very humble (and perhaps incorrect) opinion.
Does that make any sense? This is different from saying that the entire NT is silent on an issue (such as “office of pastor”) and therefore is not endorsing such.
I dunno. It makes sense to me!
I dunno. It makes sense to me!
I’m sure it does, my friend. hehehe
Y’all have a blessed Resurrection Sunday. Tell your family hello for me.
Heather,
You said:
That really isn’t possible, you know. It’s impossible to process anything without a framework of assumptions. You can try to read the Gospels with different assumptions. You can try to read them without certain very specific assumptions. But you can’t read them without any assumptions at all.
I think maybe what you mean is that you are reading the Gospels as if you don’t already know what they say and what they mean. This is a commendable exercise–and very difficult.
Most of us read the Bible simply to reinforce what we already think and believe.
God Bless,
Rod
Rod,
yes — what you said “I think maybe what you mean is that you are reading the Gospels as if you don’t already know what they say and what they mean. This is a commendable exercise–and very difficult. is what I should have said … thanks for showing me that
And yes, it is difficult!
Blessings!
~Heather
I join late in the conversation. Just returned from three days on the coast with 59 fifth graders. Great fun, ya’ll should try it for a little invigoration!
Just two comments on this conversation:
Craig, RE your Hamlet/math analogy: I believe we get drawn into inappropriate conclusions for precisely your insight “…because we want our theology to have the same kind of certainty that we admire in mathematics…; we want predictable control over our security. It is the antithesis of faith and is born out of fear we will be deceived. This logically equates with we are swayed by our awareness of our own darkness; thus uncertain of the faithfulness of God to hold us. This draws into focus our not understanding life in the Spirit of God. We reduce the Christian faith to a war between good and evil and introduce the question of “How can I be sure I am winning?” The gospel of faith is the way of life in the Father separate from the rebellion against Him, and He has already won all that needs to be won!
Steve, the afore-thought illuminates the crying need of the humility you describe. A community of believers in which humilty drives the mutual listening for the “steering” of the ship from God.
ded, welcome back, my brother!
Your comment is very well-put. “…we want predictable control over our security” effectively removes the relationship with our Father, no? How many are trusting in their own ability to stand rather than the One “who is able to keep [us] from falling”?
Good topic, and good discussion. But even with the most careful effort to exegete, I believe we still need to maintain a distinction in our own minds between the words of Scripture and the interpretation we make of it. The Scripture “cannot be broken.” Our interpretations are not divinely inspired and are not final. (I believe God is the final interpreter of His own Word.) Human interpretations change over the centuries–Mohammed, Ginghis Khan, the Pope, Hitler, Stalin have all been nominated for the Antichrist–don’t know if anyone’s suggested Ahmedinejad yet. Sometimes they change even faster. Even the punctuation in our English Bibles is someone’s interpretation, since the oldest manuscripts didn’t have it. Leaving out the comma in “for equipping the saints, for the work of the ministry” makes a huge difference!
Another line of approach I sometimes use, when it can be applied, is to go back to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. He gave His own interpretations of some of the commandments in His teaching. And I think any interpretation of passages on leadership and authority in the church would have to fit with what He said about leadership in the Kingdom. He didn’t talk about everything–or the Gospels didn’t record it if He did–but it can help at times.
Anyway, humility demands that we keep track of the distinction mentioned above, and remember, when we get into arguments over interpretations among ouselves–if God turns out noot to agree with either of us, we’re both in trouble.
Phil Hawkins
phil h, you wrote: But even with the most careful effort to exegete, I believe we still need to maintain a distinction in our own minds between the words of Scripture and the interpretation we make of it.
Well said! Excellent comment.
It sounds like we’re all pretty much in agreement on this topic. Thank you all for your contributions.
Steve,
Thanks for your comments. It does indeed appear this topic has a great deal of unanimity to it! Just like all the other topics (yeah, right!). As for your question on blogging, well, no, I don’t. The thought is going through my mind though. I’m finding that with responses to questions on certain topics, and with the flurry of responses that I see you dealing with I’m not sure I could keep up. I will say, since starting to be more regular here I am thoroughly enjoying it so who knows…
Also, dealing with a few family issues right now, would appreciate prayer.
May the Lord bless you (all). In Him,
-marty
PS: He is risen!
Marty, you definitely have my prayers, bro. If there’s anything specific I can be praying for, feel free to email me (there’s a link to email me up there in the sidebar under “My Other Sites”). But God knows the needs, and I will trust the Spirit to pray through me.
With regard to “the flurry of responses”….ahhh, yes. Frequent comment “ded” has made the same comment to me when I try to entice him to blog! It took me about 18 months to get to this kind of traffic, however, so you get to kind of ramp up to it in most cases. But yeah, it’s a bit of a time commitment on occasion.
You can opt to write only on safe topics, however
Or, you can just not respond to comments. I know some bloggers who do that (just don’t respond), but it takes the fun out of the conversation, I think!
Be blessed, my friend. And may the peace of our risen Lord fill your heart and mind through these “family issues”.
Pingback: Latest Book Reviews