Eisegesis vs. Exegesis: What’s the Difference?
“Eisegesis vs exegesis” is the most important conversation that no one in the Church is having.
Peruse a Christian message board. You will quickly find that there are seemingly endless differences in the interpretation of scriptures. How can we determine the theological importance of the Bible if we can’t settle on what it actually means?
Understanding the difference between eisegesis and exegesis is the first step in providing Biblical clarity.
Definitions
For starters, let’s agree on the definitions for both eisegesis and exegesis.
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text such that one introduces their own assumptions and biases into its meaning.
Exegesis is the process of interpreting the text’s meaning in accordance with the original author’s context and purpose.
In other words, the process of exegesis requires us to place ourselves in the mind of the author. We must consider the “sitz im leben”, or “place in life”, to better understand the scripture’s purpose and meaning.
By comparison, when we read the bible using eisegesis, we are projecting our own agendas onto the text. We emerge from this exercise with a superficial or incorrect view of the scripture’s original intent.
Why is Eisegesis a problem?
You don’t need a history degree to know that man has a habit of twisting biblical scriptures to support a host of immoral positions. The most famous of which is the use of the Bible to support slavery in the American South.
A favorite passage among Christian slaveholders of the day comes from the book of Genesis:
“And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”
Genesis 9:18-27 KJV
19th-century Christian slaveholders often cited this scripture to justify their support and propagation of the “peculiar institution”.
In fact, Reverend Robert Wightman used this tract as inspiration for a sermon he delivered in 1861 to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Yorkville, SC.
“They are the gifts of God. The pillar of cloud dropped fertilizing dew on our soil, and the pillar of fire brought across the ocean the only tillers who could survive pestilence, and wring from the sod the bloom of silver and harvests of gold. God blessed our land and gave to Ham [emphasis added] the privilege of mitigating his “curse” by spreading Christianity with the labor of his hands.”[1]
Reverend Robert Wightman (1861)
Medieval Eisegesis
In fairness, the idea that the Curse of Ham specifically referenced African bondage goes much further back in history.
Early Jewish writings such as the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b, states, “Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished—the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates, and Ham was smitten in his skin [emphasis added]”.
The 4th century Eastern Christian work, Cave of Treasures, clearly connects slavery with dark-skinned people. “When Noah awoke…he cursed him and said: “Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers” … and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.”[2]
How can we interpret the scripture more accurately using Exegesis?
If given no other context, it is easy to see how slaveholding, white southerners misinterpreted the text. According to their understanding of the scriptures, Africans should expect a life of bondage as “sons of Ham”.
However, there are more than a few problems with this theory.
For starters, the Canaanites were white[3], not black. So, there’s that…
Second, Genesis is a book of “beginnings”. The original title of the book in Hebrew is bereshith or “in the beginning”. Reading it through the process of exegesis underscores its importance to the history of the Israelites.
Genesis serves as an explanation of the relationship between the Jews, God (Yahweh), and the promised land. It demonstrates “why” the Israelites (God’s chosen people) are able to overcome their enemies — the Egyptians, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, and, of course, the Canaanites — in their quest to settle the promised land. Their inheritance of the promised land is ordained by God. Through His curse on the descendants of Ham — the literary embodiment of Israel’s enemies — the Israelites will fulfill their destiny.
In addition, “seeing someone’s nakedness” is generally used in the Bible as a euphemism for sex. Some Bible scholars argue that Ham did more than gaze upon his father while he was drunk and unclothed. These scholars argue that Ham had sexual relations with his father, Noah. They point to the verse that indicates when Noah awoke, he “knew” what his son had done to him. How would he “know” if his son had only looked at him?[4]
In this context, the passage also serves as a cautionary tale against the gateway sin of immodesty. The Israelites believed that immodesty led to other, more serious sins of the flesh.
Finally, and most importantly, the notion of human bondage runs directly counter to fundamental Christian teachings. Slavery stands in direct opposition to Christian ideals. The idea that Christ’s salvation is free to all peoples and that humanity is designed in the holy image of God flies in the face of the idea that God would sanction human bondage.
In other words, to confirm the Divine acceptance of human enslavement is to refute the very pillars of the Christian faith.
Conclusion
For centuries, the projection of our personal prejudices into the reading of scripture led to the development of a racial hierarchy that denied one of the most basic Judeo-Christian beliefs —that all men are created equal in the holy image of God.
So, the next time you hear someone quoting scripture to support their modern opinion, remember to ask yourself, “Is that how the original author meant for that to be interpreted or is this just another example of eisegesis?”
“Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.”
2nd Timoth 2:7 ESV
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with your friends on social media. Help other Millennials discover the rational case for God.
Please check out our other blog posts on the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God.
Learn more about how A Millennials Divine Defense came to be by clicking here.
And don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to our blog and join the campaign to bring Millennials back to the Faith!
[1] Wedow, Lindsey K.D. (2015) ““Servants, Obey Your Masters”: Southern Representations of the Religious Lives of Slaves,” The Gettysburg College Journal of the Civil War Era: Vol. 5 , Article 4.
Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe/vol5/iss1/4
[2] Curse of Ham. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Curse_of_Ham#cite_note-2
[3] Wade, L. (2017, December 8). Ancient DNA reveals fate of the mysterious Canaanites. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites
[4] Frankel, D. (n.d.). Noah, Ham and the Curse of Canaan: Who Did What to Whom in the Tent? Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://www.thetorah.com/article/noah-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-who-did-what-to-whom-in-the-tent
Recent Comments