Revisiting Biblical Hermeneutics

In my previous blog post, I shared that I would like to reprioritize to establish a solid theological foundation. To do that, I would need to first set up a good methodology by which I do so. For most Christians, including myself, we believe that the Bible is the word of God and most, if not all, of our theological knowledge comes from the Bible. Thus, the methodology that I would need to establish would be on how I should read and interpret the Bible.

This is an especially important endeavor in my opinion. In my own interactions with believers, I find that I often disagree with them on how some biblical text should be interpreted. Sometimes, we have the same principles that we may abide by, the difference in opinion in this case may stem instead from how well we understand and apply those principles. But at other times, the disagreement arises from having fundamentally different interpretive principles altogether. Almost all of us would recognize that there are huge doctrinal disagreements among believers, the only way to resolve this, in my opinion, is to first agree on how we should interpret the Bible. If Scripture does not speak clearly on a given doctrine after applying sound interpretive principles, then the wisest stance is to withhold dogmatic certainty.

To strength my understanding, I read How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, along with various other resources and updated the wiki entry Biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis. My focus, however, leans toward propositional and doctrinal interpretation. Therefore, in the wiki entry, I have written less about poetry and wisdom literature, whose purposes are more oriented toward guiding worship and shaping godly living.

Those interested in a fuller overview of hermeneutics may refer to the wiki entry. In this article, I want to reflect specifically on the practice of exegesis.

The threat of Eisegesis

Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text by reading one’s own preconceived ideas, biases, or assumptions into it, rather than drawing the meaning out from the text itself. Almost everyone would agree that exegesis is the right way to interpreting a text. However, none of us are immune to unintentionally allowing our biases to color our reading.

In a recent Bible study discussion on Matthew 6, I raised a question concerning Matthew 6:33, which appears to promise that God will provide basic physical necessities—food, water, and clothing—to those who seek His kingdom and righteousness first. My question was how we should reconcile this promise with the observable reality that some seemingly sincere Christians die from starvation, malnutrition, contaminated water, or a lack of weather-appropriate clothing. The uncomfortable implication is that those individuals were hypocrites and not truly seeking God’s kingdom first.

In response, several fellow believers argued that Matthew 6:33 should be interpreted in light of the broader context of Matthew 6, where Jesus emphasizes prioritizing heavenly rewards over earthly concerns. They suggested that the verse is not a promise of physical provision, but an exhortation not to be overly concerned with material needs.

I agree that literary context matters. However, the broader context does not negate the plain meaning of Matthew 6:25–34, which clearly asserts that God provides these basic necessities for those who seek Him. Jesus explicitly grounds this reassurance in God’s care for birds and animals. The two points—prioritizing heavenly things and trusting God for earthly provision—are not mutually exclusive.

From this exchange, my impression is that the reinterpretation arose, at least subconsciously, from an attempt to reconcile the passage with the troubling reality that there appear to be situations that God did not fulfill the promise of earthly provision. This, I think, is an example of how all of us—myself included—can inadvertently bring in personal bias into a text rather than allowing the text to speak on its own terms.

What’s next?

In forming a methodology for biblical interpretation, it necessarily involves an interpretation or understanding of Scripture, specifically about how it ought to be read. My next step is to consider what the Bible itself teaches about the core assumptions underlying this methodology:

• Divine inspiration and authority: God is the ultimate source of Scripture, yet He worked through human authors with distinct personalities, vocabularies, and historical contexts.
• Biblical inerrancy: The Bible, in its original manuscripts, is wholly without error in everything it affirms.
• Canonical unity: Scripture forms a coherent whole, presenting a unified narrative of God’s redemptive purposes.