Session #01 - Biblical Hermeneutics
Date: 19 June 2026 · Location: Foxford Leisure Centre · Teacher: Thomas Garvin
What This Study Is and How to Use It
This page is a standalone written version of the first session of How to Study the Bible. Whether or not you were in the room, you can work through the full content here. Plan for approximately one hour. No prior knowledge is required, but nothing has been softened for the sake of comfort. If a term is unfamiliar, it will be explained. If a passage is difficult, that difficulty will not be glossed over.
The goal is simple: to read the Bible as it was written, understand what it actually says, and build doctrine on that — not on tradition, assumption, or feeling.
1. Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is the bedrock of the entire series. Every other tool we discuss sits on top of it.
Meaning
Hermeneutics is the theory and practice of interpretation — the systematic study of the principles and methods used to draw meaning from a text. In biblical studies it refers to the discipline of reading Scripture on its own terms.
The word comes from the Greek ἑρμηνευτική (hermēneutikē) — the interpretive art. It is related to the verb ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō): to translate, explain, or interpret. Many scholars connect the term to Hermes, the Greek messenger god who served as interpreter between the divine and human realms. Whether or not that etymology is exact, the idea holds: hermeneutics is the discipline of bridging the gap between a text and its reader.
For the Bible, that gap is substantial. The Scriptures were written in three ancient languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), across approximately 1,500 years, by dozens of authors, to audiences separated from us by culture, geography, and history. Hermeneutics is the set of principles that allows us to cross that gap responsibly.
Origin and Development
Hermeneutics did not begin with Christianity. The Greeks were already asking how to interpret Homer. Jewish scholars developed detailed interpretive traditions around the Torah long before Christ. But the discipline as a formal study has developed through several key stages:
- Ancient and Rabbinic period: Jewish rabbis developed structured rules for interpreting Scripture. Rabbi Hillel (c. 110 BC–10 AD) formulated seven rules of biblical interpretation (Middot) that shaped how the Hebrew Scriptures were understood.
- Early Church period: Origen (c. 184–253 AD) argued for multiple layers of meaning — literal, moral, and allegorical. Augustine (354–430 AD) produced On Christian Doctrine, one of the earliest systematic guides to biblical interpretation. He insisted that where a literal reading produces something absurd or immoral, a figurative reading is required — but the literal should always be considered first.
- Reformation period: Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–1564) pushed back against the allegorical method that had dominated medieval interpretation. Their principle was Scripture interprets Scripture (analogia scripturae) — if a passage is unclear, let other, clearer passages shed light on it. They also insisted on the plain sense of the text — what it says to the original reader in the original context.
- Modern period: Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) is often called the father of modern hermeneutics. He moved the discipline toward understanding the psychology of the author — what did the author intend? Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) broadened hermeneutics to apply to all human expression, not just texts. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) introduced the idea of the "fusion of horizons" — meaning is always produced in the meeting between the world of the text and the world of the reader. E.D. Hirsch argued strongly for the author's intent as the anchor of meaning, as a correction against interpretations that become entirely reader-driven.
Key Thinkers and Ideas
Thinker Period Key Contribution
Rabbi Hillel c. 110 BC Seven rules of biblical interpretation (Middot)
Origen c. 184–253 AD Multiple senses of Scripture: literal, moral, allegorical
Augustine 354–430 AD Literal sense is primary; figurative sense where literal fails
Martin Luther 1483–1546 Scripture interprets Scripture; the plain sense of the text
John Calvin 1509–1564 Historical-grammatical method; author's intent
Friedrich Schleiermacher 1768–1834 The author's psychological intent as the goal of interpretation
E.D. Hirsch b. 1928 Author's intended meaning is the only stable meaning
Central Concepts
Author's intent: What did the human author mean when they wrote this, to that original audience, in that context? This is the primary question of sound interpretation.
The historical-grammatical method: Interpret the text according to its historical context and its grammatical structure. What did these words mean in this time and place?
The hermeneutical circle: Understanding a text requires reading the parts in light of the whole, and the whole in light of the parts. You can't understand a single verse without understanding the book it comes from. You can't understand the book without the broader Canon. This is not a problem — it is the normal process of reading carefully.
Scripture interprets Scripture: Where one passage is ambiguous, clearer passages elsewhere in the Bible should guide the interpretation. The Bible is its own best commentary.
Applications
Hermeneutics applies wherever texts need interpretation — law courts interpret statutes, literary scholars interpret novels, historians interpret documents. For our purposes, it is the set of principles we bring to Scripture every time we open it. Most people already use hermeneutics — they just haven't named it. This series is about doing it consciously and consistently.
2. Exegesis
Meaning
Exegesis comes from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι (exēgeisthai): ἐξ (ex) meaning out of, and ἡγεῖσθαι (hēgeisthai) meaning to lead or to guide. Exegesis means to lead the meaning out of the text. You go into the text to find what it says, then bring that meaning out.
Description
Exegesis is the practice of reading a text on its own terms. The exegete asks: what did the author mean to say, to the original audience, in the original context? It is an exercise in listening before speaking — understanding before applying.
Key Features
- Start with the text, not a conclusion. You approach the text without a predetermined answer.
- Consider the original language. Words carry specific meanings that can shift in translation. Word studies (using tools like Strong's Concordance, which we will use later in this session) help recover those meanings.
- Read in context. No verse stands alone. The paragraph, the chapter, the book, the testament, and the whole Canon all shape the meaning.
- Identify the literary genre. Poetry does not work the same way as legal instruction. Prophecy does not work the same way as historical narrative. Getting genre wrong is one of the most common interpretation errors.
- Cross-reference with other Scripture. The Bible's authors were aware of one another. Later authors quote, allude to, and interpret earlier ones. Recognising these connections is part of sound exegesis.
Example
Romans 8:28 (ESV): "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
An exegetical approach notices:
- Who is this addressed to? Those who love God and are called according to his purpose — not all people universally.
- What does "good" mean here? The following verses (vv.29–30) define it: to be conformed to the image of his Son. "Good" here is not comfort, health, or prosperity — it is Christ-likeness.
- What is Paul's context? He is writing about suffering (v.18), weakness (v.26), and the groaning of creation (v.22). The promise is not that bad things won't happen, but that God works through them toward a defined purpose.
This is what the text actually says. Exegesis stays with that.
3. Eisegesis
Meaning
Eisegesis is formed from the Greek εἰς (eis) meaning into, with the same root hēgeisthai — to lead. Eisegesis means to lead meaning into the text. You arrive with a conclusion and find verses to support it.
Description
Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis. Instead of reading to discover what the text says, the reader uses the text to confirm what they already believe. The text becomes a quarry from which supporting quotes are mined, rather than a source of truth to be understood.
It is important to say plainly: eisegesis is extremely common, including in pulpits, commentaries, and well-intentioned Bible studies. Identifying it in others is easy. Recognising it in yourself is harder. The discipline of this series is, in part, to build the habits that guard against it.
Key Features
- Prooftexting: Lifting a verse out of its context to support a claim, without asking whether the verse, in context, actually teaches that claim.
- Confirmation bias: Reading the text looking for support for what you already believe, rather than what the text actually says.
- Ignoring the original audience: Reading as if the text was written directly to modern readers in modern circumstances, without asking what it meant first to those it was written for.
- Assumption smuggling: Bringing modern cultural, philosophical, or religious assumptions into the text and reading them as if they were already there.
Example
Philippians 4:13 (ESV): "I can do all things through him who strengthens me."
This verse is commonly cited to mean: God will help you achieve any goal you set your mind to. That reading is eisegesis. The context (vv.11–12) makes clear that Paul is talking about contentment in any circumstance — whether in plenty or in want. The "all things" is not unlimited ambition; it is the ability to endure whatever situation he finds himself in. The text says something quite different from what the popular use of it implies. That is not a minor distinction.
4. The Core Difference Between Exegesis and Eisegesis
The difference is direction.
Exegesis Eisegesis
Direction Text → Meaning Predetermined meaning → Text
Starting point The text itself A conclusion to be confirmed
Question asked What does this say? Where does this support what I believe?
Risk Misunderstanding through ignorance Misuse through assumption
Result Doctrine shaped by Scripture Scripture shaped to fit doctrine
The practical consequence is serious. A church or individual whose interpretation is consistently eisegetical will produce a theology shaped more by the interpreter's culture, preferences, and assumptions than by what God actually said. The text becomes a mirror that reflects the reader, not a window into truth.
5. Context
Meaning
Context refers to the surrounding circumstances — textual, historical, cultural, and canonical — that give a passage its meaning. The word comes from the Latin contextus: con (together) + texere (to weave). Context is what is woven around a text.
Description
A word, verse, or passage cannot be understood in isolation. Meaning is always contextual. Remove the context and you can make a text say almost anything. "There is no God" appears in the Bible — in Psalm 14:1, where the full sentence reads "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Context changes everything.
Key Features
Immediate context — the sentences and paragraphs directly surrounding the verse. This is the first and most critical level. Before looking anywhere else, read the paragraph.
Book context — the argument, structure, and purpose of the whole book in which the passage appears. Ecclesiastes reads very differently when you understand that much of it reflects human wisdom without God ("under the sun"), not divine instruction.
Historical context — when was this written, by whom, to whom, and why? A letter written to a specific church in a specific crisis may have universal principles, but the specific instructions belong to that situation first.
Cultural context — what customs, assumptions, and practices shaped the original audience? Many passages that seem strange become clear when the cultural background is understood. The reverse is also true: passages that seem simple can carry deep cultural significance that modern readers miss.
Canonical context — where does this passage fit in the overall story of Scripture, from creation to new creation? A promise made to Israel in the Old Testament must be understood within the trajectory of the whole Biblical narrative.
Example
John 11:35 (ESV): "Jesus wept."
In isolation this looks like a simple record of grief. The immediate context (vv.33–38) complicates it. Jesus already knows he is about to raise Lazarus (v.11). What moves him to tears is not primarily the loss of Lazarus, but the sight of Mary and those with her weeping, and — the text says — he was "deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled." The word translated "deeply moved" (ἐνεβριμήσατο, enebrimēsato) carries a sense of indignation or agitation, not just sorrow. This is a richer picture than simple grief, and the context is what makes it visible.
6. Co-text
Meaning
Co-text is the text that immediately surrounds a passage — what comes directly before it and directly after it within the same document. Where context is the broader set of circumstances (historical, cultural, canonical), co-text is purely textual and immediate.
Description
Co-text is the first thing to examine before doing anything else with a verse. You must read what comes before and what comes after. Preachers who take a text and leave the surrounding verses unread are working without their most basic tool.
Key Features
- It is immediate and internal — no research required.
- It establishes the flow of an argument or narrative.
- It identifies to whom a statement is addressed.
- It reveals conditions, qualifications, and contrasts that a verse alone will not show.
Example
Matthew 7:1 (ESV): "Judge not, that you be not judged."
This is one of the most frequently quoted and misapplied verses in the Bible. People use it to mean: do not make any moral assessments about anyone's behaviour. The co-text (vv.2–5) immediately reveals that Jesus is not prohibiting judgment — he is prohibiting hypocritical judgment. He tells his hearers to remove the plank from their own eye first, and then to help remove the speck from their brother's eye. Verse 6 then instructs them not to give what is holy to dogs — which requires making a judgment. The co-text dismantles the popular interpretation completely.
7. In-Text
Meaning
In-text (sometimes called intra-text) refers to the internal features of the passage itself — its grammar, structure, word choices, literary devices, and voice. It is not what surrounds the text but what is inside it.
Description
Once you have read the co-text, you look carefully at the mechanics of the passage itself. How is it constructed? What does the grammar tell you? Are there repeated words? Is there a structural pattern? Is the author using a figure of speech? These internal features carry meaning and are often the most precise guide to what the author intends.
Key Features
- Grammar and syntax: Who is doing what to whom? Tense, mood, and voice in the original languages carry information that translation sometimes flattens.
- Word selection: The choice of one word over another is deliberate. Word studies — using tools like a concordance or lexicon — can reveal layers of meaning not visible in translation.
- Literary structure: Parallelism (common in Hebrew poetry), chiasm (an A-B-C-B'-A' pattern that places emphasis at the centre), and repetition all signal what the author considers important.
- Genre markers: The opening of a Psalm sets different expectations than the opening of a legal code. Recognising the genre from within the text shapes how you read everything else in it.
- Shift in voice or address: When an author shifts from speaking about someone to speaking to them, or from third person to first person, that shift is significant.
Example
Psalm 23 contains a notable internal shift. Verses 1–3 speak about God in the third person: "He makes me lie down... He leads me... He restores my soul." At verse 4, the Psalmist shifts to direct address: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, **for you are with me**." The intimacy increases precisely at the point of greatest danger. That shift is an in-text feature — and it is not accidental.
8. The Deuteronomy Principle — Doctrine Must Be Established by Two or Three Witnesses
The Passage
"A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." — Deuteronomy 19:15 (ESV)
This is a legal principle for the administration of justice in Israel. No charge could be sustained on the testimony of one person alone. But the principle carries over directly into the interpretation of Scripture and the establishment of doctrine.
The Principle Applied to Bible Study
A doctrine should be supported by at least two or three clear, independent scriptural witnesses. If a teaching rests on a single verse — especially a verse that requires a particular interpretation to yield that teaching — it should be held lightly and tested further before being preached as settled doctrine.
This principle is echoed in the New Testament:
"Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." — 2 Corinthians 13:1 (ESV)
"Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses." — 1 Timothy 5:19 (ESV)
Jesus himself invokes it in John 8:17–18 when the Pharisees challenge his testimony: "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me."
The principle is not a bureaucratic technicality. It is a guard against the authority that a single verse, read in isolation, can seem to carry. One verse quoted firmly is not the same as a doctrine established by Scripture.
We will apply this principle directly in the case study that follows.
9. Case Study — The Woman Who Touched Jesus' Garment
This is where the tools we have named get used on actual text. The account of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment appears in three Gospels. That itself is significant.
The Three Accounts
Gospel Passage Key Details
Mark 5:25–34 Most detailed; names her condition, her spending on doctors, her worsening state
Matthew 9:20–22 Briefest account; focuses on Jesus' declaration and her healing
Luke 8:43–48 Medical detail (she spent all on physicians; none could heal her); Jesus insists on knowing who touched him
Having three accounts in three Gospels is itself an application of the Deuteronomy principle. This event is multiply attested. The core facts are consistent across all three. The details they each choose to include or omit tell us something about the purpose of each author.
Reading the Text
*"And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, 'If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.' And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, 'Who touched my garments?' And his disciples said to him, 'You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, "Who touched me?"' And he looked around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. And he said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.'"* — Mark 5:25–34 (ESV)
What Does the Text Actually Say?
Before we draw any conclusions, we apply the tools:
**Co-text:** In Mark, this account is embedded within the story of Jairus's daughter (vv.21–24, 35–43). Jesus is on his way to a dying child when the interruption occurs. The surrounding story is one of faith under pressure and the power of Jesus over death. The woman's story sits inside a larger frame about what Jesus is capable of and what faith in him looks like.
**In-text:** The woman said to herself: *"If I touch even his garments, I will be made well."* The text records her *reasoning* before she acts. She was not acting on impulse or desperation alone — she had a specific belief about what touching his garment would do. Where did that belief come from?
The text also records that she *"had heard the reports about Jesus."* The Greek for *"reports"* is ἀκούσασα (akousasa) — literally having heard. She had received information, and that information shaped her expectation. The question is: what exactly had she heard, and what did she expect?
What the Text Does Not Say
This is where we must be honest. There are two common interpretations of this passage that the text does not support.
Rejected interpretation 1: She knew Jesus was the Messiah. The text does not say this. Nowhere in any of the three accounts does the woman identify Jesus as Messiah, refer to him in messianic terms, or make any statement of messianic faith. Reading that into the text is eisegesis.
Rejected interpretation 2: That "faith" here means a power that is activated by the believer's act of reaching out — that her reaching was itself the mechanism of her healing, and that any person who reaches out in the same way will be healed. This teaching is extremely common. It is also not what the text says. The text says her faith made her well — but it does not define what that faith was in, nor does it present her act of touching as a transferable technique. Making it a method — reach out in faith and you will receive — is to import a teaching that is not in the text. That is eisegesis.
What the Text Does Support — Going Deeper
The woman had heard something about Jesus and formed a specific expectation: that touching his garment specifically would heal her. She did not try to approach him directly. She did not call out to him. She reached for the hem of his garment.
Why the hem?
This is where careful study of the Old Testament — and the original language — opens the text up.
Malachi 4:2 — A Word Study Using Strong's Concordance
A note on translation: Strong's Concordance was compiled using the King James Version (KJV). For word studies using Strong's, we switch to the KJV. This is made clear throughout. All other quotations in this study are from the ESV.
The passage is Malachi 4:2 (KJV):
"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."
This is a prophecy. "The Sun of righteousness" rising "with healing in his wings" is a messianic image — a description of one who is coming who will bring healing.
Now the key word: wings.
In the KJV, the word translated "wings" is the Hebrew word כָּנָף (kanaph). In Strong's Concordance, this is Strong's H3671.
Strong's H3671 — כָּנָף (kanaph):
- Wing (of a bird)
- Edge, corner, extremity
- The outermost part of a garment — the hem, the fringe, the border
The same word used in the Malachi prophecy for "wings" is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to the hem or fringe of a garment. They share the same Hebrew root and the same Strong's number.
We can verify this is not a creative leap by looking at another passage. In 1 Samuel 24:4–5 (KJV), when David secretly cuts the skirt (kanaph) of Saul's robe, the same word is used. The hem of a garment and the wing of a bird are the same Hebrew word.
This means that a Jewish woman who knew the Malachi 4:2 prophecy — and who heard that Jesus was going about healing people — had scriptural reason to believe that the hem of the Messiah's garment would carry healing. The Malachi prophecy used the word kanaph. The garment's hem was kanaph. The connection was not superstition. It was faith in the Word of God.
The Proposed Doctrine — Established by Two or Three Witnesses
The woman's faith was specifically faith in the written Word of God — in the prophecy of Malachi 4:2. She heard reports of Jesus. She knew the prophecy. She drew a conclusion. She acted on it. And she was healed.
This is not faith as a vague spiritual feeling, or faith as a technique of reaching out. This is faith as trusting that what God said in his Word is true — and acting on it.
Now we apply the Deuteronomy principle: can this doctrine be established by two or three witnesses in Scripture?
Witness 1: Romans 10:17 (ESV)
"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
Faith has a source. It is not self-generated. It arises from the Word.
Witness 2: Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Faith is directional — it is assurance of things hoped for. The woman had something specific to hope for: the healing promised in Malachi 4:2. Her faith was in that specific promise.
Witness 3: John 5:46–47 (ESV)
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
Jesus himself connects faith in himself to faith in the written Scriptures. To believe what the Scriptures said about the coming one was to have faith in him. The woman's faith in Malachi's prophecy and her faith in Jesus are not two separate things — they are the same act of trust.
The doctrine — that the woman's faith was faith in the Word of God, specifically the Malachi 4:2 prophecy — is supported by three independent witnesses in Scripture. It satisfies the Deuteronomy principle.
11. Reflection Questions
Work through these on your own or with others. There are no trick questions — the answers are in the texts.
In your own words, what is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? Can you think of an example from your own experience of a verse being used eisegetically?
Look up Matthew 5:17 (ESV): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them." What co-text (vv.17–20) changes how you might understand the word "fulfil"?
The woman in Mark 5 is described as having "heard the reports about Jesus." Based on what we studied about Malachi 4:2, what do you think she may have heard — and how does that change the meaning of Jesus' words, "Your faith has made you well"?
Take any verse you have heard preached recently. Apply the following checks:
- Did the preacher read the co-text?
- Was the in-text examined (key words, grammar, structure)?
- Was the broader context (historical, cultural, canonical) acknowledged?
- Was the doctrine supported by two or three other passages in Scripture?
Why does it matter whether the woman's faith was faith in a prophecy rather than faith as a general act of reaching out? What is at stake doctrinally in getting that right?
We've just learned a lot about how to study the bible and how to build doctrine.. and, of course, how not to!! The premise of course is that the Bible is trustworthy in the first place. I've included a video below of an excellent teaching by the late Voddie Baucham on how and why we can trust the integrity of the Bible as it has been handed down to us. I think you'll find this very useful, very informative.. I did.