29/07/2025
A GUIDE TO BASIC EXEGESIS
Charles L. Echols, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
The term “exegesis” derives from the Greek ek and hegeomai, or “to lead/draw out.” The idea then is to draw the meaning from a passage of Scripture. The antonym “eisegesis” refers to reading meaning into Scripture that is foreign to it. Unless exegesis is conducted carefully, it is possible to commit eisegesis.
Exegesis is at least as much of an art as it is a science. That is, there are many methods, and this guide is simply one. The basis procedure is to distinguish the meaning of the original author as determined in the original context and then to work outwardly into wider contexts (e.g., Isa 40:1-11, Isa 40, Isa 40-55, Isaiah, Old Testament; John 1:15-18, John 1:15-36; John 1; John, New Testament). No matter which method you choose, it is axiomatic to begin with the text itself, since to begin otherwise leads to eisegesis.
This guide presents exegesis as a five-step process, which may be picture as a four-scoop ice-cream cone:
1. WHAT IS THE TEXT? (TEXTUAL CRITICISM)
We have no autographs (originals) of the Old or New Testament. The Scripture that we have reflects copies of the autographs (or more actually, copies of copies). In the Old Testament, for example, there are different “witnesses” (i.e. Hebrew texts) such as the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and different “versions” (i.e. translations of Hebrew texts) such as the Pesh*tta and Septuagint. Similarly the New Testament has different witnesses (e.g., Papyrus Bodmer [75], Codex Sinaiticus [א]) and versions (e.g., the Vulgate). The problem is that there are literally thousands of instances of disagreement among and between the various witnesses and versions. How, then, do we know what is the best text? This is the task of textual criticism, which is the first step in exegesis, since otherwise all subsequent steps build on an uncertain foundation.
If you do not know Hebrew and Greek, you will not be able to do textual criticism. In this case, you should compare the translation of your passage between at least three modern versions, e.g., NRSV, ESV, NAU. Where there are significant differences, learn more about them by consulting at least three critical commentaries.
Whether you do textual criticism from the original languages or by resorting to the commentaries, you should wind up with the best reading of the text. It is this reading that forms the basis of your exegetical work.
2. WHAT DOES IT SAY?
2.1. Delimit the Unit
Once you have determined the best reading of your passage, read the translation over and over again. Next, delimit the passage/unit/pericope (1) externally, from its surrounding context, and (2) internally, i.e. determine the major structural units to the passage.
There are several methods for both types of delimitation. The unit may, for example, lend itself to form criticism. If the unit is poetry, and it is surrounded by units of prose, then there are clear formal grounds for delimiting it externally thus. Or it may be a proverb, or a genealogy, or a hymn which contrast from the surrounding genres. Particularly helpful for internal delimitation is the grammatical and/or literary method. Watch for as changes of person (e.g., from third-person to first-person speech), time (e.g., past to present), and topic (e.g., salvation to judgment). Such changes signal a movement from one section of the passage to another.
A good way to chart the passage’s internal structure is to write it on a sheet of paper, then draw a line in the text where you see such changes. In poetry go verse by verse. In prose you will probably work with more than one verse. Then group individual verses into larger sections. Summarize each verse/section. This process should give you an exegetical outline, with the larger sections the main points (e.g., A., B., C., etc.) and the smaller sections or verses as sub-points (e.g., A.1., A.2., A.3.). Determine the main point of the verses by summarizing each into a single statement, and the main point of the passage by consolidating the section summaries into one, clear statement.
There are two main reasons to delimit the passage. Internally, it identifies the major movements within the passage. For example, if the passage has four main sections, the teaching/preaching should reflect this in four main points. Externally, it ensures clarity of focus. This is not to say that the surrounding passages are unimportant; rather they may obscure or complicate the idea of the passage under study. Occasionally, the reverse occurs, i.e. making a separation where it should not be, as is the case with Pss 42 and 43. The refrain “Why are you cast down, O my soul?,” in 42:5, 11; and 43:5 suggests that the two psalms should be read as one. Although both contain many of the forms of the psalm of individual lament genre (lament, 42:3a; 43:5; mention of foes, 42:9b/43:a-b; confession of trust, 42:11b; 43:2a), Ps 43 has a petition (v. 1, cf. also v. 3). Even though the psalmist utters several expressions of faith in Ps 42, the petition reveals that s/he is confident enough to ask God to deliver him. A sermon or teaching on Ps 42 alone would, thus, miss the opportunity to make a major point: strong faith leads to conviction (cf. Heb 11:1).
2.2. Word Studies
As you read and re-read the passage, you will see that one or more words are especially significant or enigmatic. Both types must be studied and explained. The basic resources for this step are lexicons, dictionaries, and articles on the word in question (either from dictionaries such as the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (or journal articles).
2.3. Figuration
Scripture, especially poetry, is full of figures of speech. Some are simple, but the meaning of others is difficult to determine. The latter must be explained in plain English (i.e. do not explain figures of speech by figures of speech). The basic resource for this is E. W. Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (New York: E. & J. B. Young, 1898), but word study guides and good commentaries may also be consulted – especially to see how the figure applies in the context of your passage.
2.4. Context
The following are some of the fundamental contexts identified by VanDevelder that you should consider as you exegete your passage. There may be others as well.
2.4.1. Historical context
When in the history of Israel was the passage spoken or written? Who was the speaker/writer? What was the historical setting (Sitz im Leben) in which s/he wrote it? Who was the speaker/writer’s intended audience? Why was the passage spoken/written?
2.4.2. Social context
Once you determine the historical time of the passage, you should ascertain its social setting. Many times the book in which the passage occurs will determine this, but there are usually clear statements or less-obvious clues in the passage itself.
2.4.3. Literary context
• “What is the overall literary structure of the book? Where does your passage appear in that total structure?”
• “Now look at the major block or unit within the book to which your passage belongs. How does your text function within that unit – as introduction, transition, part of development, climax, conclusion, or something else? How does this context affect the meaning of your passage?”
2.4.4. Literary-historical context
• “Usually a passage has two or more historical contexts. First it was spoken orally to an audience of one or many. Then it was written down and included in a literary document of book with a different audience. In other cases, the passage has passed through several stages, all in written form. Each of these stages had a different historical setting. Do you see more than one stage in the life of you text? Has it gone through one or more stages of modification and reinterpretation?”
• “Does your passage use earlier traditions or traditional elements (forms, motifs, concepts, verbal images, etc.)? Does it use them in the traditional way, or does it make some addition or change in them?”
3. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (CRITICAL METHODS)
Thus far you will probably have used one or more of the many methods of biblical criticism (e.g., textual criticism, form, grammatical/literary criticism, tradition and redaction criticism). You may, however, wish to take the results of your exegesis thus far and apply another critical approach. Be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of any method that you choose. Some can be very subjective (e.g., source criticism, reader-response). Moreover, you may wish to use a combination of approaches. A good resource for the traditional methods is John Hayes and Carl R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982). Until recently, grammatical and literary criticism predominated.
In the last twenty to thirty years, many new approaches have been developed. Canonical criticism, for example, affirms the results of historical criticism, but recognizes its failure to reach a consensus in many areas. It thus exegetes with a view to the meaning that the wider canon affords to a given passage, i.e. it takes “the forest” view. A major contemporary approach is liberation criticism, which maintains that those in power have distorted the meaning of Scripture for the oppressed. Scripture must therefore be liberated from this hegemonic stance if it is to minister to the oppressed. Liberation criticism has led to the development of many other approaches which share the basic criticism of a monopoly hold on Scripture by one set of interpreters over the rest of society. Many of the newer methods are more properly hermeneutical than exegetical approaches in that they seek to apply an approach with presuppositions or interests that are not immediately in the biblical text. They seek to deconstruct Scripture to make it relevant to their respective audiences/communities. For example, a basic presupposition of feministic criticism is that, since the Bible was written in androcentric times, the patriarchal worldview dominates and distorts the text. Feminist exegesis, then, attempts to filter out the androcentric bias. The same basic concern applies to many of the newer approaches, e.g., postcolonial, indigenous/adivasi/Dalit, and disability criticism. Although the newer approaches alert us to problems in the older methods, they are not problem free themselves. Some (e.g., reader-response) have little or no controls so that Scripture can be interpreted in ways that most readers would find idiosyncratic and distorted. Others have clearly stated agendas that, despite their well-intentioned purposes, may also tend towards eisegesis rather than exegesis. Perhaps the best method is to determine what a passage meant to its original audience, and then apply one or more of the newer methods. Clearly this is somewhat simplistic, but it has the advantage of minimizing the chance of interpretive distortion.
4. WHAT IS ITS THEOLOGY?
Whichever exegetical method you choose, as you apply the aforementioned steps to your passage, one or more theological emphases will probably have emerged. If not, however, go back and read the passage asking questions such as what it says about God and humanity as well as the basic theological categories such as sin, salvation, forgiveness, mercy, judgment, election, covenant, mission, etc. VanDevelder’s tips are helpful:
As you explain what it meant then, keep the following questions in mind:
a. What was the human situation?
b. What is God doing or saying in that situation by way of:
i. demand, warning, affliction or judgment?
ii. blessing, assurance, promise, mercy and salvation?
You may have to deal with more than one level of meaning.
5. HOW DOES IT APPLY?
The research components of your exegesis are now complete, and the next step is to think about how your passage applies today. Here again, many applications may have occurred to you in the course of the exegesis. If not, think in terms of contexts, especially socio-geographical ones. Does the passage have lessons for people, for example, in Pune, Maharashtra, India, Asia, the world? Be sure to distinguish between points that are contextually bound to the passage (e.g., the proscription against wearing clothing from different materials in Lev 19:19) and those which are timeless (e.g., concern for the vulnerable in society as in Zech 7:10).
6. WRITING AN EXEGETICAL PAPER
6.1. Consulting the secondary literature
After you have completed the exegesis of your passage, you may wish to consult the secondary literature (e.g., journal articles, monographs, commentaries). Do not do so, however, before completing your own exegesis; and, when you read the literature, read it critically because (a) sometimes a scholar is wrong, (b) you will not know if s/he is wrong if you do not have a solid understanding of the passage, and (c) an original or unique thought/direction about the passage that you may have will almost certainly be lost if you read the literature before doing your own reading and thinking about it. Take notes as you read and think. Once you have finished with your survey of the literature, you can proceed to writing your paper. What questions does the passage raise in your mind? Try to sketch out the message(s) of the passage in your own words.
6.2. Introduction
A basic introduction does several things. It begins with a sentence or two that sets the broad context so as to help the reader to see the general direction of the paper. Then a further sentence or two brings the scope to a sharper focus. Ideally, you should summarize the passage in one propositional statement. The next step is to give an overview of the paper to give the reader a general understanding (or “road map”) of how the paper develops.
6.3. Body
The body presents the exegesis in a systematic fashion. You can simply follow the steps of the exegesis, e.g., succeeding sections for the basic questions that drove the exegesis: what is the text? What does it say? What does it mean? What is the theological meaning? How does it apply? Be sure to write the paper according to the appropriate audience, e.g., Bible study, academic essay.
6.4. Conclusion
A good conclusion gives a brief summary of the main points of the paper, and then, ideally, extrapolates from these points to a larger idea (“the sum is greater than the parts”).
6.5. Citation and bibliography
Cite the secondary literature consulted by footnotes (not endnotes) and supply a bibliography of works cited. For footnotes and bibliography, use the examples in §§7.2-3 in Patrick Alexander, et al., eds. The SBL Handbook of Style – for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999).
6.6. Proofreading
Try to put the paper away for a few days, and then re-read it before turning it in. Use good English grammar and punctuation. For a simple, concise guide, see William Jr. Strunk and E. B. White, The Elements of Style (3rd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1959; repr., 1979). Run spell check and grammar check, although the latter can be fairly unreliable. It’s also a good idea to have a friend read your paper. They may not have the technical knowledge that you have, but they should at least be able to tell you if there are any unclear areas.
