Provoke

For those in our Deeper Walk class i found this and thought it might help:

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 eisexegesis 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.

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.