EXEGESIS, Biblical. The word "exege sis° is from the Greek 10790ic, primarily a leading out, and coming to mean, an interpreta tion, an explanation, a making clear. The verb Ifnybmai occurs six times in the New Testa ment, always in the sense of revealing a fact or of making clear a truth, Luke xxiv, 35; John i, 18; Acts x, 8; Acts xv, 12, 14; Acts xxi, 19. In John i, 18, we read, "No man bath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one became his exegete)) (kayos- eetn+yaro). That is to say, Jesus revealed the inmost character of God. He made manifest what otherwise would have remained hidden. He interpreted God's being. He made clear the Divine providence and plan. His person and his whole teaching and life were an exegesis of the invisible and previously incomprehensible Godhead. What Jesus did for God's being and providence, the exegete endeavors to do for the Bible. He searches for its inmost meaning, explains what is obscure, leads out to the light what is less manifest, makes clear all its implications and sets its complete import before the mind's eye. The task of Biblical exegesis, therefore, is to clear up all difficulties and to make plain the meaning of the Bible text. It might seem a comparatively easy thing to do this; but cen turies of endeavor have shown that while all the essentials of the revelation in the Bible are reasonably clear there are problems con nected with all of the Bible books which tax the utmost powers of the greatest minds to master them. Then at least four temptations beset the interpreters of Bible truth. One of these is apparent in those exegetes who " Each dark passage shun And hold their farthing candle to the sun." What is clear in itself needs no further ex planation. The office of the exegete becomes a necessity only when the meaning seems ob scure. Another danger in exegesis is that of bringing a meaning to the text instead of draw ing the meaning from it. The text is forced into agreement with previous prejudice or opin ion. This is nearly always fatal to the truth.
As an old monk said, 'Whosoever seeketh an interpretation in this book shall get an answer from God; whosoever bringeth an interpreta tion to this book shall get an answer from the devil." Jerome put the same truth more mildly when he said, "He is the best teacher who does not bring his doctrine into the Scripture but out of the Scripture.° Sometimes the obvious meaning of the text is unpalatable to the exe gete, for doctrinal or other reasons, and then he is tempted to explain the meaning away. This is rankest treason to his calling. He is expected to be loyal to the truth and nothing but the truth. If he betray the truth in behalf of a political party or a church organization or a doctrinal system he is no longer worthy of his office or name. A fourth temptation is that of adding to that which is written, improving upon the text by the addition of unwarrantable inferences and subjective fancies and unjustifi able subtleties of every sort. It represents the presumption of the apostle Peter at Caesarea Philippi, who thought he knew better than his Lord what ought to be said and done. These are four fundamental faults of all exegesis; a failure to explain the meaning that is obscure, a distorting of the meaning that seems obvious, an utter perversion of the plain truth, and a supplanting of the truth with merely human ver biage or wisdom. Wilful miscarriage, maiming, murder and the substitution of a changeling for the true child are crimes in the realm of inter pretation, as well as under the civil law. The science of exegesis has sought from the first to free itself from these faults. If it has not wholly succeeded as yet, that is simply to acknowl edge that like all other science its development has been entrusted to fallible men. We may trace various schools of exegesis through the history of the Church, and in all of them some one or other of these fundamental faults is likely to be manifest.