A Few Remarks on Exegesis
My view of exegesis has certainly developed over several decades. I used to think that a good lexicon, a solid historical understanding of doctrine, and prayer were all that was required in order to know what the Bible says. That paradigm was shattered long ago. In its place I have come to realize several important, but not necessarily inclusive, ideas that now shape my exegetical efforts. I wish to share them so that your analysis and critique can further this process for me. These are not in order of importance.
- If I cannot understand the contextual meanings of the terms used by the original author in his culture, then any attempt to proclaim the meaning of a text is most likely mistaken. Biblical words are no different than any other words, that is, the meanings of the terms are culturally dependent. Meanings change over time, especially in translations. So my exegetical effort must begin with what the words meant to the original audience. I cannot assume that I even know who the original audience was unless I am willing to investigate the history of the people addressed. For example, the meanings of the words in Genesis depend on the meanings of those terms as understood by the children of Israel recently removed from Egypt. While that seems obvious, I find it ignored far too often. It is more often the case that ideas, terms and meanings from the reader’s perspective are applied to the text. No better example of this can be found than the Christian penchant for Messianic prophecy. Reading an idea back into the text, an idea that typically has no initial basis in the contemporary culture of the author or audience, usually results in theological category errors or worse.
- Every text of the Bible is also historically dependent. What words meant for Moses does not mean that they are the same for Isaiah, and certainly not for James, John or Paul. Simply because the word shows up in a biblical passage does not guarantee that it has a ubiquitous meaning in all biblical passages. Unless I know the history of the author’s culture, the influences that bore upon him and the linguistic dependencies resulting from surrounding cultures and events, I can’t know what he meant, and ipso facto, I don’t know the exegesis of the text.
- Languages borrow words from other cultures and contexts. That also should be obvious. Bon voyage is common parlance in English but it is borrowed from French. So is “in lieu of.” Since this pattern is true of all human languages, we dare not assume that it is not true of the “sacred” language of the Bible. Genesis borrows words from Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures, for example. Proverbs borrows entire sections from Egyptian sage writings. Daniel is subject to Babylonian influence. In fact, the Hebrew alphabet is borrowed. In order to exegete a passage properly, we must pay attention to the etymology of the word, and in particular, its linguistic cognates in surrounding languages. Exegesis that fails to recognize the influence of linguistic parallels will often mistakenly assert the isolated independence of a biblical idea. While this may be true for some (crucial) Hebraic concepts, it is more often the case that Hebrew ideas are related (in some way) to similar ideas in other linguistic systems. The opening chapters of Genesis are a good example. Genesis is not about Newton. It is about Babylon and unless I know the genesis stories of Babylon, I will not understand why the Hebrew version of Genesis is unique.
- The theological assertion that the Bible is the only guide for interpreting the Bible is just that—a theological assertion. It is not exegesis. It is fideism. I might wish to believe that God “superintended” the formation of the Bible so that every word in the Bible is true, accurate and unimpeachable, but that is theology, not linguistics. It could also be a psychological crutch that enables me to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of tentative truth. What most people desire of religion is certainty, and several doctrines attempt to provide this, relieving the adherent from the possibility that what he believes now might be shown to be false later. If this doctrine prevents me from doing the real research of discovering what the text meant in the first place, if it hinders the task of looking at sources outside the Bible proper in order to understand the words of the authors, then the doctrine is of little value for the task of exegesis. That doesn’t mean it has no value. It just means it stands in the way of exegetical work. As an example, if I assert that the concept of the “son of Man” can only be interpreted from within the Bible, I will fail to recognize the influence of 1 Enoch on Matthew’s development, and as a result, I will not notice that Matthew’s idea doesn’t conform precisely to the idea in Daniel. I can assert that it should conform, but my doctrinal stance will not lead me to understanding how Matthew came up with his idea, and that means I will probably not understand what Matthew is really saying.
Another example of this dilemma is the substantial influence of Second Temple rabbinic Judaism on the text of the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Nearly every idea found in the apostolic writings is connected in some way to rabbinic thought. But very few Christian exegetes pay any attention to these influences simply because of an a priori commitment to this doctrinal position (which, by the way, is also a development of replacement theology) and the textually unsupported belief that rabbinic thought is Jewish while the New Testament concepts are Christian.
Exegesis is a linguistic-theological project. It begins with what the author of the text meant in the cultural framework of his world. It must begin there since there is no other way to understand the words that he wrote. This may lead to theological assertions (or it may not) but the theology is secondary. Theology is abstraction from the text, just as the speeches of Romeo and Juliet are not directly applicable to our generation. Doctrines that regulate what the text must mean hinder exegesis. They are the stuff of paradigms and typically prevent us from seeing anything in the text except what the paradigm says is in the text. The biggest obstacle to learning God’s word is thinking that we already know what He says. We must practice spiritual suspended animation, putting what we think we know on the shelf, if we are going to re-think what the text teaches. Hopefully we will find that what we thought we knew is still the case. But not always. Sometime our most cherished beliefs are the very things that prevent us from hearing what the original author said. There is no better example of the tragic consequences of this phenomenon than the fact that many brilliant Jewish exegetes view Paul as a man who rejected Torah and converted to Christianity. This horrible mistake is the result of reading the New Testament as if it were Christian, rather than Jewish, and that is the direct result of the mistaken Christian doctrine of replacement theology, a doctrine that has colored religious thinking for two millennia.
- In the end, this means we must abandon the idea of absolute certainty as a stand-alone fact. That does not mean we can’t commit ourselves to what we believe to be true. It simply means that we are finite human beings who do not have the temporal span nor the capacity to objectively ascertain all that is true. We have to rely on sources outside of our noetic framework. We have to choose, not blindly, but on the basis of what we know so far. Then we live it out and see how it works, constantly aware that we may need corrections. This does not mean there are no absolute truths. The statement itself is a virtual contradiction. It simply means that we are unlikely to be able to prove absolute truth. The evidence is always subject to the interpretative scheme. We investigate, we contemplate, we articulate—and then we critique and start again—together, in community.
Exegesis is the process of exploring what the author meant and seeing where it leads us. Theology is abstracting ideas from the exploration. Instruction is learning how to live with what we find.
June, 2016
Brilliant! We have a lot of study and work to do.
Hello Skip,
I became interested in Hebrew roots nine years ago through an online acquaintanceship made with a Messianic Rabbi. He passed away a few months later, but I still find it necessary to confer with a lexicon, Hebrew vocabulary wordlist and definition of a given word to better grasp an idea being conveyed by Scripture for instruction on how to live today for the Master. Grace, justice, humility, fruitfulness faith, are subjective terms or nouns until a Hebraic and Greek understanding are brought alongside them. I find the view that the Hebrew Scriptures are Jewish and the Apostolic Scriptures and or new testament are the Christian set, poses the biggest stumblingblock to my exegetical quest. Moreover, first century church history is presented from two very distinct perspectives.
I like your word studies as they follow along my idea to have the bear necessities at hand: a Lexicon, prayer and ongoing reshaping of understanding the culture and times in which a given book of Scripture is set. To understand the human heart meant the mind or mental capacity of one, enriches verses where the term heart is used for example. Biblical Archaeology Review and James Taber are helps in the area of cultural awareness of that time.
As to living with other believers, I find as cultural shifts are embraced by the church at large, some of us hang on to what we know to be tried and true certainties so as to cope and order our lives. The promise of being freed in coming to know the truth suggests truth is solid, a unchanging, reliant, factual and descriptive. If all this helps us decide daily to walk with the Master, then we are really blessed disciples!
David R
Thank you for this encapsulation, Skip. My corrupted thought patterns need to be corrected, and corrected, and corrected again, I am sure.
When our ancestors ate from the Tree, they chose to hand us a pattern of thought that desired to make sense of the “knowledge of evil”: the stuff that makes no sense. I think we have been chasing our tails in that futility ever since.
Also, I have realized that, given the way we seem to react to the fact that life itself is open-ended, our current knowledge (experiencing) of evil predisposes us to the terrible experience of that uncertainty with dread and horror, instead of with curiosity and acceptance of what is in each and every minute. I think this horror must be what drives us to want to ‘already know it’ before we get there. Hence, doctrinal ‘certainty’, and other absurdities in the face of finite understanding, still under the influence of the Fall. Adam and Eve before that Fall sure didn’t know everything, but they were fine with it!
Thank you again for sharing some of your spiritual maturity with us.
What a blessing this journey is. Every day discovering the universal nature of our God. Thanks to all that share your thoughts and experiences.
“We investigate, we contemplate, we articulate—and then we critique and start again—together, in community.”
I long for this to truly happen. We don’t have a great track record of articulating and critiquing
in a way that maintains community. We have just as much to learn about community as we do about exegeses.
Thanks for today’s article. I am presently studying ‘Old Testament’ at a Theological College. For the first time in 50 years of being a follower of Yeshua, I am seeing it in context, and it’s wonderful. It is a joy to read for e.g. Isaiah and realise to whom he is addressing his words and why. I’m sorry that it’s taken me so long and that it took a a university course to open my eyes. Your articles are very good. Thankyou
“Then we live it out and see how it works.” I’ve been living it out and living it out has caused me to suffer. Suffering brings about endurance, healing and closer to the heart of God and God reveals more of Himself. And, the more that He’s revealed brings me to people like you, rabbi’s and a Hebraic was of life. I never know what I’m doing but He constantly affirms it along the way. Thanks for writing this succinctly so I can pass it on to others. Blessings, Skip.
Invaluable insight, helpful for exposition and enlightenment. Blessings
THANKS… for the constant reminder that scripture can mean NOW what it didn’t mean THEN.
What you’ve said is very true but is sometimes hard to do. Finding the resources for good exegesis proves difficult to the average person. People don’t have access to seminary libraries or the funds to create their own. The internet is helpful but still limited. Concordances and certain lexicons don’t reveal the nuances between synonyms. You might need some kind of multi-volume set if you hope to find that out. Public libraries lack the right resources too. Asking the right questions about the words, culture, or history when reading a passage is a skill that must be learned. Even so, even skilled people fail to ask the right questions. People may need a flow chart to assist them in the learning process. Just when you think you are getting somewhere, someone may say that you still hold to traditional Christian doctrine when you think you’ve already studied and changed your paradigms. It’s ok to disagree sometimes on things. When we do, we need to find out where the differences are and study some more. Some people refuse to study at all, as if it’s a gift for only a select few and for fear of reaching a wrong conclusion. They prefer to let the Spirit help them grow in their relationship with the Father. I think that’s scary. One problem is they’ve seen people who study Scripture and Rabbinics eventually reject Yeshua as Messiah. That’s not good. Rabbinics is a huge beast to digest. People need to know where to start, what books to look at, and how to digest it. What’s the most basic place to start? Few are equipped to give any suggestions as best I can tell. Even so, Rabbinics seems like more opinion to sift through. We need sifting guidelines. People need to understand why there are differences in what the NT writers quoted and what’s actually in the MT and/or LXX. It bothers people so much they are rejecting the reliability of the text. I think it’s also important to learn how to do literary analysis. Through it, we can learn little nuggets or hit a major vein by looking closer at chiasms and all kinds of parallels. Lastly, money is the biggest hindrance to my ability to access resources such as multi-volume dictionaries and take courses. Still, I think there’s got to be a way around this annoying hindrance so I can study to my heart’s content and do solid exegesis.
I like this post
+1 for this post! And +1 for Tanya O’s comment. Community is huge!
Thank you Beth, you have described very well what many of us experience.
Skip, thank you for this summary, it will serve very well in explaining, better than I could, why we ‘ had the nerve’ to challenge the cherished theologies that now are a chasm of division between us and many close to us. And thank you for your seemingly tireless determination in this complex landscape of linguistics, history and Truth. Your insights help immeasurably.
Thank you Skip
This provides some deeper understanding of other scholars that have been explaining how to understand and approach the bible…
1 Cor. 2. 6.
“Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory.”
Spiritual Progress: By Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)
What men stand most in need of, is the knowledge of God. They know, to be sure, by dint of reading, that history gives an account of a certain series of miracles and marked providences; they have reflected seriously on the corruption and instability of worldly things; they are even, perhaps, convinced that the reformation of their lives on certain principles of morality is desirable in order to their salvation; but the whole of the edifice is destitute of foundation; this pious and Christian exterior possesses no soul. The living principle which animates every true believer, God, the all and in all, the author and the sovereign of all, is wanting. He is, in all things, infinite—in wisdom power and love,–and what wonder, if everything that comes from his hand should partake of the same infinite character and set at nought the efforts of human reason.
Manuel d’Hermenoutiquc Biblique, p. 5. Geneva, 1852.
The word hermeneutics is of Greek origin, from ἑρμηνεύω, to interpret, to explain; thence the adjective ἡ ἑρμηνευτική (sc. τέκνη), that is, the hermeneutical art, and thence our word hermeneutics, the science or art of interpretation. Closely kindred is also the name Ἑρμῆς, Hermcs, or Mercury, who, bearing a golden rod of magic power, figures in Grecian mythology as the messenger of the gods, the tutelary deity of speech, of writing, of arts and sciences, and of all skill and accomplishments.
MILTON S. TERRY, S.T.D., 1883
Exegesis is the application of these principles and laws, the actual bringing out into formal statement, and by other terms, the meaning of the author’s words. Exegesis is related to hermeneutics as preaching is to homiletics, or, in general, as practice is to theory. Exposition is another word often used synonymously with exegesis, and has essentially the same signification; and yet, perhaps, in common usage, exposition denotes a more extended development and illustration of the sense, dealing more largely with other scriptures by comparison and contrast. We observe, accordingly, that the writer on Biblical Introduction examines the historical foundations and canonical authority of the books of Scripture. The textual critic detects interpolations, emends false readings, and aims to give us the very words which the sacred writers used. The exegete takes up these words, and by means of the principles of hermeneutics, defines their meaning, elucidates the scope and plan of each writer, and brings forth the grammaticohistorical sense of what each book contains. The expositor builds upon the labours both of critics and exegetes, and sets forth in fuller form, and by ample illustration, the ideas, doctrines, and moral lessons of the Scripture.
Arthur J. Licursi, 2014
Since we cannot pay attention to the details of other people’s “mail,” applying it to ourselves, without likely coming to confusion and contradiction, we need to see and understand the general big-picture by noting these in our study.
1) To whom God and/or His representatives (i.e., His prophets, angels, and Apostles) are speaking…
2) Concerning who…
3) To apply at what time… and
4) To what effect.
Excellent statement of the need for historical-grammatical-cultural studies when working to understand the biblical texts. I’ve been advocating this idea for decades. This true for both basic history and for literary development (e.g., pardes as an interpretive methodology). By reading the Book from back to front, we often end up allegorizing the literal, and literalizing the allegories.
Keep up the good work.
Yes excellent! Definitely using this as my guideline to keep in mind when studying the scriptures.
We truly need this TW on exegesis. Thank you Skip, for painstakingly defining it for us, to guide us in our understanding, clearing confusions that come our way.
” The biggest obstacle to learning God’s word is thinking that we already know what He says.” Wouldn’t that be termed presumptuous?
“Exegesis is the process of exploring what the author meant and seeing where it leads us. Theology is abstracting ideas from the exploration. Instruction is learning how to live with what we find.” Absolute conclusion!
I continually thank God for you, your love for Him and His Son, and for your passion to share your insights with us daily. To God be the glory! Evelyn