What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

Answer

Exegesis and eisegesis represent two contrasting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis involves the exposition or explanation of a text through a meticulous, unbiased analysis. The term exegesis literally means “to lead out of,” indicating that the interpreter derives conclusions by faithfully following the text.

On the contrary, eisegesis is an approach to Scripture where the interpretation of a passage is influenced by a subjective, non-analytical reading. The term eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” suggesting that the interpreter imposes personal ideas onto the text, distorting its intended meaning.

Clearly, exegesis is the method that honors the text. Eisegesis represents a mishandling of the text that often results in misinterpretation. Exegesis focuses on uncovering the genuine meaning of the text while respecting its grammar, syntax, and context. In contrast, eisegesis prioritizes making a specific point, even if it distorts the actual words.

Second Timothy 2:15 instructs us to employ exegetical approaches: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” A sincere student of the Bible will engage in exegesis, allowing the text to communicate its message. Eisegesis is prone to error as the interpreter tries to fit the text into preconceived ideas. Exegesis enables us to align with the Bible, while eisegesis aims to make the Bible align with our beliefs.

The process of exegesis includes: 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage connect with the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage impact my life?

In contrast, eisegesis, on the otherOn the other hand, exegesis involves: 1) imagination – what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration – what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application – what does my idea mean? Notice that in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage:

2 Chronicles 27:1-2

“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”

EISEGESIS

First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.

EXEGESIS

First, the interpreter reads the passage.Message and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27;2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” «And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land. », (2 Chronicles 26:21).

Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Of course, exegesis takes more time than eisegesis. But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is the only way.