Exegesis vs Eisegesis

This semester in seminary, I'm taking Exegesis: The Gospel of Luke. Someone asked me what that meant. So here's the difference between exegesis, eisegesis and inductive Bible study.

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') involves an extensive and critical interpretation of a biblical text. Sometimes, the terms exegesis and hermeneutics are used interchangeably. However, exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text, while a hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question. A common published form of a biblical exegesis is known as a 'bible commentary.' Robert A. Traina's book Methodical Bible Study has become influential in the field of Protestant Christian exegesis. Many regarded it as the standard text describing the inductive approach to interpreting the English-language Bible.

Inductive bible study involves a close and careful examination of the text itself, with little to no reliance of the interpretation of others. In other words, a passage is examined closely, paying attention to the words, the sentence structure, the paragraphs as written by the author. Then the passage's location within the chapter, book, and entire Bible are examined.

Many are familiar with IBS from Kay Arthur and Precept Ministries. I LOVE Kay Arthur, so I expected my IBS course to be easy. This was not a correct assumption. The course was extremely challenging, but I learned much from it. Having now done an IBS and Exegesis in New Testament studies, I will be required to do the same with the Old Testament.

Eisegesis (from the Greek εἰσηγεῖσθαι; 'to lead in') is the process of interpretation of an existing text in such a way as to introduce one's own ideas. 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.

Eisegesis differs from hermeneutics. Hermeneutics seeks first to discover what the author originally intended, in the original context, and then to faithfully extrapolate that to a modern application. Eisegesis does not seek to first ascertain the original intent. Eisegesis is only concerned with what "the text is saying to me."

In the field of biblical scholarship, eisegesis is considered "poor exegesis." Exegesis scholars take great care to avoid eisegesis. While some [most?] denounce biblical eisegesis, many [most?] Christians employ it - to some degree, perhaps inadvertently - as part of their own experiential theology. Modern evangelical scholars accuse liberal protestants of practicing biblical eisegesis, while mainline scholars accuse fundamentalists of doing the same. Catholics say that all Protestants engage in eisegesis, because the Bible cannot be correctly understood except through the lens of Holy Tradition, and Jews counter that all Christians practice eisegesis when they read the Hebrew Bible as a book about Jesus.

It is interesting to me that an inductive Bible study course was a prerequisite to the exegesis course I am now taking. In other words, I was first required to learn to look at the text itself -- without the aids of commentaries. Is that, perhaps, an cautionary indicator of our over-reliance on the interpretation of others, rather than original source material?

Greek was a prerequisite or corequisite for the IBS. Hebrew is a prerequisite or corequisite for the OT IBS. So understanding the original language [not a TOTAL understanding] is an essential part of understanding the original meaning.

Ok. Enough ramblings about seminary. ;-)