Exegesis, Exposition and Homiletics
“exegesis. n. The act or result of drawing out the meaning of the biblical text and explaining it; interpretation.” – Pocket Dictionary for the study of New Testament Greek
“exegesis n. critical explanation of a text, esp. of Scripture.” – The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus
“exposition. n. Biblical interpretation, with an emphasis on contemporary relevance and application.” – Pocket Dictionary for the study of New Testament Greek
“exposition n. 1 explanatory account. 2 explanation or commentary. 3 large public exhibition.” – The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus
“homily n. 1 sermon. 2 moralizing discourse. homiletic adj.” – The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus
It is strange to me that we seem to have a hard time distinguishing between each of these activities. Not that we struggle to define each one in theory, or explain each one in an abstract way, rather our struggle is in differentiating which one seems to come first. It is a question of priority not a question of definition. The definitions of each of these activities are clear and accurate I might add. The lines become slightly blurred between exegesis and exposition, because anytime a person draws out the meaning of a passage, they will naturally begin to restate that meaning in a way that they and their contemporaries can readily understand. This second step in exposition should also naturally lead into homiletics since in order to explain the meaning of something it is common to illustrate that meaning through giving practical examples of the implications (or applications) of that meaning.
The easiest way I have found to understand the relationship between these three is to relate them to Bible study in general. First, there is the observation (what does it say?). Second, you have the interpretation (what does it mean?). Third, you have the application (so what?). Although the analogy is not perfect it seems to clear some of the air that surrounds my confusion between what is acceptable in homiletics. Because that is really that issue that troubles me. What is acceptable in homiletics? It isn’t that exegetical techniques are of no concern to me, it’s not that exposition isn’t important, it’s that when you listen to 15 sermons in one week you begin to ask yourself about the relationship between exegesis, exposition and homiletics.
The other issue that seems to trouble me is the issue of the use of imagination in homiletics. Imagination is not normally encouraged in exegesis (I know that could be a bone of contention for some of you, but that’s too much for one post) however, imagination is almost vital for good homiletics, because the best content in the world won’t save a boring preacher (or speaker). It seems clear to me that exegesis requires inferences and drawing natural conclusions from the literature. In other words exegesis would require being open to images and figures of speech that spark the imagination (note that these images and figures of speech are mentioned in the text though). Once the dirty spade work of exegesis is done, then creative thinking (or imagination) is required in order to state the meaning in words that are readily accessible to people today. Then in homiletics imagination can soar and be used to add color and drama to the exegesis. However, imagination must be kept in check by exegesis, or in other words imagination must remain accurate to the truth of the passage.
I believe this process of using imagination is better able to preserve the truth of a passage then allowing the imagination to soar and then reigning that imagination in with exegesis. If the imagination soars too far before the passage is studied then the “imaginative” perspective already present will color the text adding another which the interpreter must sort through. I’ll close by illustrating my last point.
Over four years ago Peter Jackson released the first installment of his film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Fellowship of the Ring” (I apologize to anyone who finds this example cliche since Tolkien is fast becoming the favorite story illustration of evangelical’s. For the record I have been a Tolkien fan for a lot longer than most of evangelicalism). Now I had already read Tokien’s book numerous times, I had already allowed my imagination to pain images of the Shire, of Bag End, of Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, the Ring and all the rest. So when I watched Jackson’s film, my understanding of his work of art was tainted by and colored by my own preconceived idea of what Middle-Earth should look like. My Middle-Earth was different than his Middle-Earth. Now there is nothing wrong with that. But if I was to do an honest critique of Jackson’s film and try to understand what he was trying to convey through his work of art, then it would be wrong of me to hold his work to my preconceived standards of what Middle-Earth should be (incidentaly this is what I did the first time I saw the film and so my experience was less than fulfilling). In other words, my use of imagination prior to viewing his film, tainted and corrupted my interpretation of his work as a film-maker. When we allow our imagination to soar prior to studying what a passage of Scripture is saying we are doing the same thing but the affects instead of being trivial (like they were in the case of the film) are enormous because it is the Word of God which is tampered with.
