The word comes from the combination of two Greek terms: exo, which means out; and hegeisthai, a verb meaning “to lead, guide.”
Exegesis is the opposite of eisegesis, which happens when the reader imports his or her previous understanding of the text in question into the interpretation. Under eisegesis, readers take their biases and presuppositions and read them into the words of the bible rather than allowing the bible to read its own meaning out.
All that to say that someone who studies a passage carefully and then through the process of reading and research pulls out the interpretive meaning from within the text is an exegete.
All kinds of folks — lay people, pastors, and scholars — engage in the kind of interpretive work of an exegete.
Only these days, many serious exegetes are instead called homophobes.
I’ll show you what I mean.
Bible scholars from the earliest days of the church and continuing into today have exegeted passages such as Romans 1:18-32 and I Corinthians 6:9-20 and concluded that homosexual practice is outside God’s will for the human race.
The conclusion comes from approaching those texts with an inquisitive mind and commitment to the exegetical process — and then guiding the meaning out from the words of Scripture.
Today’s experts do so with no malice, no sense of glee, no spirit of triumphalism and no gay-bashing. Instead, after serious study, scholars such as Ben Witherington and Robert Gagnon — hardly members of Westboro Baptist Church, those two — remind us that if Scripture has any continuing authority over the life of the church, the church needs to teach that homosexual intimacy is not God’s design for men and women.
Sadly, if you align yourself with these longstanding exegetical conclusions in 2012 you run the risk of being given that new name I mentioned earlier: homophobe. I’ve been called that on this blog. Other pastors and professors who preach and teach sexual orthodoxy have as well. That word — that name — gets flung around pretty freely in the United Methodist debate over homosexuality . . . and never to the end of elevating the conversation.
As if the serious study of and honest conclusion about Scripture means you have an irrational fear of people with same-sex attraction and behavior.
Honestly, I wish Scripture wasn’t so unanimous in its lament over homosexual intercourse.
But it is.
So my “phobia” these days has nothing to do with homosexuality.
And everything to do with the fear that I might somehow allow my wishes to influence my exegesis.
There are 11 comments
I couldn’t have said it better myself. How often has ridicule of those seriously interested in exegesis been used as the preferred method of debate or dialog? A “God will adjust to our desires” type of thinking seems to ignore the history of the church. Isn’t it interesting that in the country where the number of Christians has increased more than 100X in the last 50 years (China),debates for instance over whether followers of Jesus should continue acting out their homosexual desires, are non-existent. In the “east” where these debates increase at logarithmic speed, the church is in decline? Would a genuine hunger for holiness of heart AND life provide an antidote to our quiet demise? I’m no Old Testament scholar but it strikes me that each time Israel got into trouble, God’s prescription was not “please learn how to get along with those who don’t believe like you do”, but “the answer to your dilemma lies not with find common ground with the Babylonians, but repenting and seeking the Lord.”
But – I would suggest that much of the “homophobic” exegesis actuall is eisegesis – reading into the passages past Christian teachings. In contrast, those who exegete the same passage and find alternative meaning for them are often told that they are “going against centuries of Christian Teaching” (that is against what is already “known” and read into a passage). Instead I would suggest anyone who goes into a passage with their mind already set to one side or the other is actually doing eisegesis not exegesis – and it is the misuse (abuse?) of the terminology that has created so much tension. There may be some scholars that truly to exeget and come up with “traditional” intepretations – but there are just as many that do not. For the most part, most folks I have tried to have this discussion with are not doing exegesis (or eisegesis for that matter) they are simply repeating agruments they have heard from others – who are likely to have not done any exegesis themselves…and so on
Nonsense. Most of us who exegete these passages, as Talbot confessed above, wish that the Scriptures were not so conclusive “that homosexual practice is outside God’s will for the human race.” Most of us have had friends or parishioners whom we have lamented with and prayed for who struggle with these desires, and we would love nothing more than for them to find love and contentment in life. We all know that the depth of this struggle is staggering, but can’t escape the biblical view that this struggle as a result of a brokenness or bent human condition resulting from the fall. There are those who have found the grace of God to emerge from the homosexual lifestyle and have found freedom and grace to even find members of the opposite sex attractive. Many have even married and enjoy their new relationships, only to be told that they are living a lie. Is the road easy? Of course not. But as pastors or church leaders, it’s not our job to make life easy for people, as much as it may be our desire. In interpreting the scriptures, we must exegete what the intent (clear in this case) is and “let the chips fall where they may” so to speak. Then, if we are honest, we must determine if we believe it at that juncture, but let’s not kid ourselves into believing it says what we want it to say. Just as scholars looking for the historical Jesus were once busted by Schweitzer for seeing their own reflections in the well of history, many are doing the same now while looking into the holy scriptures.
John Eargle
Well put.
Well said.
Regardless of terms, there is only one Holy Spirit and interpreter of Scripture, so it is impossible to have multiple correct interpretations. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever also, His nature is not one of confusion.
CCHS Dad, the problem with your logic is you are being very general and generic…so general and generic it really doesn’t say anything at all. The author mentioned two New Testament Scholars who have exegeted the passage (or do you throw them into the eisegesis camp?). I think to leverage the accusation that these two scholars are doing eisegesis is simply grasping at straws…while you didn’t come out and say it in your comment, it really feels like you are saying, “Anyone who disagrees with my stance is doing eisegesis.” I would not throw these two scholars into that camp.
This is what I love about the UM Church, we have the quadrilateral which gives us tradition, reason and experience to work with scripture. If you are using these tools, then you are an exegete.
As a UM pastor of going on my 40th year, I hope that Kent recalls that in the quadrilateral, Scripture rules. Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” That is holy scripture, and it is what scholars like Ben Witherington would call a part of the OT moral code. It is a moral command just as much as “love thy neighbor.” Lev. 19:18 says, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” That’s part of the moral code, too. So are the ten commandments.
The debate about homosexuality is just the tip of the iceberg. It clearly illustrates a wider problem. I am also disturbed by the way we ignore what scripture teaches about money in order to justify accumulating wealth. I am disturbed that we no longer even bother to try keeping the sabbath holy (one of the big 10), or that we are often willing to celebrate and bless relationships that began as an adulterous affair. We are very good at making scripture say what we would like for it to say.
I’m sad when progressives call consevatives “bigots.” Equally sad when conservatives call progressives “unBiblical”.
My pro-LGBT views are based on the Bible. And I think exegesis not eisegesis. We all — and I put you and me both in this category — have to take care in understanding the difference. In my case, the experience of having gay family members creates that risk. May I suggest in your case, a strong feeling for tradition creates that risk for you. I say that because it seems the case being made by conservatives against same-sex marriage relies more on a long tradition of interpretation than on the text alone. Since ancient times didn’t understand what we do now about orientation and etiology, since Bible doesn’t mention same sex marriage, and since the references to homosexual behavior are instances (e.g., pagan temple, pederasty etc) which would be equally condemnatory if between man and woman, then the traditional view requires filling in a lot of gaps. But obviously so too does my progressive view require filling in some gaps.
I do not think you are a bigot. Apart from our disagreement about homosexuality, I think you are an outstanding pastor. I love being in the big tent of Methodism where we progressives and conservatives can enrich each others faith and discipleship, and together, accomplish more towards our missing of making disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world.
I do not think Ben Witherington is a bigot. And based on my interaction with many conservative leaders in our connection, I feel most who I disagree with about homosexuality are genuinely good Christians and not homophobes. I think most are also aware of the tension in the church position and regret when it is misunderstood and misapplied by folks who are bigots. Afterall homophobia and heterosexism are real, that’s why our Social Principles take a stand against them.
May I gently suggest, Talbot, that you not include Robert Gagnon in the same breath as Ben Witherington? I feel like his conclusions with respect to homosexuality are quite different from yours and Ben Witherington’s. Withington aims to be an equal-opportunity critiquer of both heterosexual and homosexual sin. Gagnon has this very odd hierarchy of which sexual sin is worse than others and he rates homosexuality as the worst sexual sin after only bestiality. He says homosexual practice within same sex marriage is worse than incest between mother and son (or any other male-female sexual sin). I know some conservatives value Gagnon’s exegesis generally while parting company from his extreme specifics (such as what I just cited). But when you use him as an example, in the context of this post, I feel it undercuts your argument.
For a progressive or revisionist take on homosexuality but based on exegesis by a New Testament scholar with a high view of scriptural authority, may I sugges David V. Brownson’s book: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Gender-Sexuality-Reframing-Relationships/dp/0802868630
Peace to you and blessings on your ministry.