Rugby, Seeing Jesus and the Marines

"Exegesis. It's what we get out of the text."

It wasn't long before students were asking the question "What's up with exegesis? Is it another form of criticism?" A swell of giddiness overcame me because that is the ONE thing I walked away from hermeneutics having learned and learned well (I did this while proudly wearing my I survived Hermeneutics tee). "Wait! I know this one!"

Let me begin by defining Hermeneutics. This is another word I often misspell as I pronounce the word HerMAN-new-tiks. It's probably properly pronounced her-men-ewe-tiks. I claim an accent and declare that no one may criticize (ok, make fun of) me. Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting the Bible. Drs. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, authors of Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (a book I do NOT recommend unless you enjoy feeling as if someone whopped off your head and used it for a riling game of rugby) describe it this way:

Interpretation is neither an art nor a science; it is both a science and an art... interpreters seek to bridge the vast linguistic, historical, social, and cultural gaps that exist between the ancient and modern worlds so that they may understand what texts mean... Hermeneutics provides a strategy that will enable us to understand what an author or speaker intended to communicate.

Doc Lester has plopped into our heads many ways to accomplish this - also known as "approaches" or rather, "forms." He seems to prefer (although not exclusively) the Diachronic Methods (across time) [textual and form criticism, historical linguistics and tradition criticism (which we have not yet covered), source, redaction and historical criticisms]. The other goodies he has brought up fall into the synchronic (close reading) or existential methods (concerning real life; such as literary and narrative criticisms, genre and form analysis, and theological exegesis). Enter exegesis.

It is perhaps easier to understand the importance -- and place -- of exegesis when taken in relation to eisegesis. The "eis" of eisegesis comes from a lovely Greek word meaning "into." We all know that "ex" as in "exit" means "to leave" or "get out of." Given the Doc's definition of exegesis "what we get out of the text" it is a simple jump to eisegesis as in "what we put into the text" or "what we want to see in the text." Most students of hermeneutics remember it this way: "I see Jesus" (because I want to).

So here is the trick: ex- and eis- egesiseseseseses are not criticisms. They are exegetical methods or approaches to criticism. In the words of Michel J. Gorman, author of Elements of Biblical Exegesis (a book worth the read especially as you continue to write exegetical papers throughout your seminary career), "...there are necessary safeguards to ensure that one's exegesis of the Bible is not really eisegesis - reading into the text... A sound exegetical method is one such safeguard." This is why the Doc has us studying all of these seemingly complicated methods and forms. He wants us to get it. And I mean really get it.

We recently read Hosea 2 and broke into small groups to discuss the nature of the text. The exercise was to produce a good habit of studying the text as closely as possible to seek its meaning with a magnifying glass before chickening out and pulling back to look at it with a telescope. Eventually, when done properly (in my opinion) one focuses in at an appropriate distance and finds the real meaning. This is the "art" part of hermeneutics the triad of docs above mentioned in the rugby book. The science part is in the focus. Here is an illustration of exegesis and eisegesis.

Exegesis: The 2nd book of Hosea speaks to a cultural understanding of marriage and the role of women in the 8th century. Additionally, the text speaks to Israel's relationship with God. (Insert details here.)

Eisegesis: The 2nd book of Hosea says that a husband is to control his wife, even going to the extent of stripping her naked and parading her in public or starving her in the wilderness until she obeys him. A good wife would obey her husband under all circumstances and the consequences of not doing so are left to the husband to determine as he sees fit.

Of course, that is an eisegetical reading by a pretty nasty jerk. But, you get my point. He has looked into the text with a preconceived belief and brought with him an understanding of what it means paying no attention to form, content, historical place and time, culture, etc., let alone the author's intended meaning.

Generally this gives students a headache. I have found over the years that most clergy get lazy in their exegesis, mostly because it is hard work and because they fall into patterns of comfortable styles of interpretation which may or may not always be appropriate to the text. However, the skills become second nature if you are able to discipline yourself. It is like running. You start with a block. Then you go around the block. Pretty soon you are running the Marine Corp Marathon and keeping up. Next time, you might even win.