The Art of Eisegesis

This is not a post about General Conference or LGBTQ rights. But it does start that way.

Over the last several months LGBTQ+ allies have insisted that Jesus said nothing about same-sex marriage. This has been one of their responses to the use of "clobber verses" like Romans 1:26-27 that are used to show the Bible speaks against same-sex practices.

The response from traditionalists was...creative. Citing Matthew 19:4-5, they claim that Jesus did indeed speak against same-sex marriage. “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the creator made them male and female?And God said, ‘Because of this a man should leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’” In reminding us of the words of Genesis, Jesus tells us that marriage is between one and one woman. Let's set aside for the moment that Genesis repeatedly talks about marriage as one man with multiple women and looks specifically at Matthew.

Taken at face value, one might concede that the traditionalists have a point. But it would be a mistake to take these verses at face value. This is actually a perfect example of something we are all guilty of - eisegesis. Exegesis is the art of interpreting scripture. Bible commentaries are full of exegesis and hopefully your pastor is as well. Exegesis helps us understand the meaning behind the text. Eisegesis is a lesser known word that means the opposite. In eisegesis we take our own interpretations and understandings and read them back into the text. One good (and for the large majority of us uncontroversial) example of eisegesis is end-time prophets. Somebody who is convinced that the world is about to end can easily take current events and find a way to interpret the Bible so that it seems to confirm the prophet's prediction. So far the end-time prophets have all been wrong - at least I think they have - but that doesn't stop others from continuing to make predictions allegedly based on the Bible.

The eisegesis of Matthew 19:4-5 is not much more complicated than those end-time prophets. The best way to avoid eisegesis is to look at the context around the verses (especially if the passage questioned cites only one or two verses.) In this case, the context is clear. In verse 3 Jesus is asked a question about divorce. "Does the law allow a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" Saying that Jesus answer rejects same-sex marriage is the same thing as saying that Jesus commands a married couple to be physically grafted to each other when he says the two become one flesh. That's just not what he's talking about.

The proof comes just two verses later when Jesus makes his point clear: "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." This is also proof of how easy it is for us to practice eisegesis without realizing it. An amendment to ban pastors from remarriage was defeated at general conference by the same people who used the first part of Matthew 19 to same-sex marriage. There is no possible way Jesus meant for this whole passage to refer to same-sex marriage and also not refer to remarriage after divorce. No rational person can make that argument. But when we already know what we believe we tend not to think rationally.

My point is not about whether general conference ultimately made the right or wrong decision in continuing to ban same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ ordination. I'm quite confident that traditionalists could point to other texts that they believe I have interpreted wrongly. My point is that all of us, regardless of theology, must always be vigilant about how we read the Bible. We all interpret. Even the act of translation from the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek manuscripts to English involves interpretation. We all need to be incredibly careful that we do our interpretation as faithfully as possible.