Exegesis and Eisegesis. What Are These Terms?

[jeremiah1five]

Exegesis and eisegesis are terms used in biblical interpretation.

• Exegesis is the process of interpreting a text based on its original context, language, and historical background. It involves careful analysis of the text itself and its surrounding cultural and historical context. Exegesis aims to understand the original meaning of the text as intended by its author.
• Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis. It's the process of reading meaning into a text that wasn't intended by the author. Eisegesis involves imposing one's own beliefs, biases, or interpretations onto the text, rather than drawing meaning out of the text itself.

In simpler terms:

• Exegesis is like reading a book and trying to understand what the author meant to say.
• Eisegesis is like reading a book and imposing your own ideas onto the story.

Exegesis is considered the more accurate and scholarly approach to biblical interpretation, as it focuses on understanding the original meaning of the text. Eisegesis can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text.

I can tell you now that there are more people here that present an eisegesis of Scripture of what is contained in its pages than exegesis which is the correct method of interpretation. And I post this because of the non-Hebrew Gentile theology that claims non-Hebrews are included in the Hebrew covenants, but this is not true. The Scripture does not present any covenant between God and non-Hebrews. I have challenged other members to post proof of a covenant between God and non-Hebrews in their 'bible' but NO ONE has posted such a thing, and NO ONE can post such a thing that does not exists. And so my exegesis from Scripture that God has made no covenant with non-Hebrews stands and everyone who believes and posts God made a covenant with non-Hebrews falls under its own weight of lies.

IF members here were honest with Scripture and have their doctrinal understanding in line with what Scripture does say, then there would be no problem. But I am posting as a minority because the majority here - without Scripture proof - believe and hold to the false idea that non-Hebrews are in the Abraham Covenant - conveniently jumping over the Mosaic Covenant - to use Galatians 3:28-29 as their proof God will save non-Hebrew Gentiles. They ignore the fact that in the chapters in which God is recorded dealing with Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) (including three chapters - 12, 15, and 17), there is no mention or naming non-Hebrew Gentiles are in this covenant. So, instead of rightly dividing the Hebrew (OT) Scripture they use verses in the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation, which is only a record and discussion by Jewish Christians to Jews and other Jewish Christians their evidence of the whole of the children of Israel trying to understand and make sense of the New Covenant era they found themselves in with the advent of Israel' Promised Kinsman-Redeemer, High Priest, and Savior of the Hebrew people, and the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL and their effect upon the Abraham and Mosaic Covenants. The conclusion Saul makes to Jews and Jewish Christians who now follow Jesus of Nazareth and were concerned with their standing in the Abraham Covenant. Saul comforts them with:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:28–29.

The "Greek" Saul is referring to are NOT non-Hebrew Gentiles, but Hebrews that are of mixed heritage who have grown up in Gentile lands heavily influenced by GREEK culture to the point that they know nothing of their Hebrew heritage - if they know anything at all - who were raised as Gentile, uncircumcised (hence, the Jerusalem Council) and as Abraham's seed (like Samaritans) they are STILL Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. This is the correct understanding to TAKE OUT (exegesis) from Scripture the history recorded there by God. The Hebrew Scripture (Genesis to Malachi) is the foundation of the Hebrew history and culture and covenants and prophecies, and that anything in the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation that contradicts what is written in the Hebrew Scripture should be rejected as false doctrine. The apostles do not contradict Scripture. It is the false interpretations I read here, interpretations that require an esisgetical method of understanding what went before in the Hebrew Scripture that the truth of God rejects. The bottom line I hold to is the truth that when reading and studying the Old Testament I find NO COVENANT there between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles. None.
So, where does the idea that there is such a covenant - without posting Scripture to prove it - come from?
It comes from the ignorant. There are members here that add to the Scripture things that are just not there and they use the New Covenant writings to contradict and break what Jesus said cannot be done: Everything written in the Hebrew Scripture.
That "thing" Saul said was profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and that "thing" Peter said "lives and abides FOREVER" is none other than the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.
I say again: God has made no covenant in the Hebrew (OT) Scripture between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles. NONE.
I take out meaning from Scripture, and others love to ignorantly "add on" things that are just not there. That is the difference between YOU and me. I take out from Scripture what is recorded, and others add into Scripture things that are just not there. And I know I am right.
And YOU are wrong.

 

[TibiasDad]

Exegesis and eisegesis are terms used in biblical interpretation.

• Exegesis is the process of interpreting a text based on its original context, language, and historical background. It involves careful analysis of the text itself and its surrounding cultural and historical context. Exegesis aims to understand the original meaning of the text as intended by its author.
• Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis. It's the process of reading meaning into a text that wasn't intended by the author. Eisegesis involves imposing one's own beliefs, biases, or interpretations onto the text, rather than drawing meaning out of the text itself.

In simpler terms:

• Exegesis is like reading a book and trying to understand what the author meant to say.
• Eisegesis is like reading a book and imposing your own ideas onto the story.

Exegesis is considered the more accurate and scholarly approach to biblical interpretation, as it focuses on understanding the original meaning of the text. Eisegesis can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text.

I can tell you now that there are more people here that present an eisegesis of Scripture of what is contained in its pages than exegesis which is the correct method of interpretation. And I post this because of the non-Hebrew Gentile theology that claims non-Hebrews are included in the Hebrew covenants, but this is not true. The Scripture does not present any covenant between God and non-Hebrews. I have challenged other members to post proof of a covenant between God and non-Hebrews in their 'bible' but NO ONE has posted such a thing, and NO ONE can post such a thing that does not exists. And so my exegesis from Scripture that God has made no covenant with non-Hebrews stands and everyone who believes and posts God made a covenant with non-Hebrews falls under its own weight of lies.

IF members here were honest with Scripture and have their doctrinal understanding in line with what Scripture does say, then there would be no problem. But I am posting as a minority because the majority here - without Scripture proof - believe and hold to the false idea that non-Hebrews are in the Abraham Covenant - conveniently jumping over the Mosaic Covenant - to use Galatians 3:28-29 as their proof God will save non-Hebrew Gentiles. They ignore the fact that in the chapters in which God is recorded dealing with Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) (including three chapters - 12, 15, and 17), there is no mention or naming non-Hebrew Gentiles are in this covenant. So, instead of rightly dividing the Hebrew (OT) Scripture they use verses in the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation, which is only a record and discussion by Jewish Christians to Jews and other Jewish Christians their evidence of the whole of the children of Israel trying to understand and make sense of the New Covenant era they found themselves in with the advent of Israel' Promised Kinsman-Redeemer, High Priest, and Savior of the Hebrew people, and the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL and their effect upon the Abraham and Mosaic Covenants. The conclusion Saul makes to Jews and Jewish Christians who now follow Jesus of Nazareth and were concerned with their standing in the Abraham Covenant. Saul comforts them with:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:28–29.

The "Greek" Saul is referring to are NOT non-Hebrew Gentiles, but Hebrews that are of mixed heritage who have grown up in Gentile lands heavily influenced by GREEK culture to the point that they know nothing of their Hebrew heritage - if they know anything at all - who were raised as Gentile, uncircumcised (hence, the Jerusalem Council) and as Abraham's seed (like Samaritans) they are STILL Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. This is the correct understanding to TAKE OUT (exegesis) from Scripture the history recorded there by God. The Hebrew Scripture (Genesis to Malachi) is the foundation of the Hebrew history and culture and covenants and prophecies, and that anything in the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation that contradicts what is written in the Hebrew Scripture should be rejected as false doctrine. The apostles do not contradict Scripture. It is the false interpretations I read here, interpretations that require an esisgetical method of understanding what went before in the Hebrew Scripture that the truth of God rejects. The bottom line I hold to is the truth that when reading and studying the Old Testament I find NO COVENANT there between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles. None.
So, where does the idea that there is such a covenant - without posting Scripture to prove it - come from?
It comes from the ignorant. There are members here that add to the Scripture things that are just not there and they use the New Covenant writings to contradict and break what Jesus said cannot be done: Everything written in the Hebrew Scripture.
That "thing" Saul said was profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and that "thing" Peter said "lives and abides FOREVER" is none other than the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.
I say again: God has made no covenant in the Hebrew (OT) Scripture between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles. NONE.
I take out meaning from Scripture, and others love to ignorantly "add on" things that are just not there. That is the difference between YOU and me. I take out from Scripture what is recorded, and others add into Scripture things that are just not there. And I know I am right.
And YOU are wrong.

Eisegesis is what you are doing. Paul clearly speaks of Gentiles/non-Jewish people and the OT speaks of of “those who are not a people” becoming “a people”, (Hosea 2:23) that the children of Abraham are those who believe, not those who are genetically Abraham’s children. (Rom 2:28-29, Rom 4:16)

Doug

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Simple!! EXegesis is the process of determining/extracting the MEANING of a text. EISegesis it the process of impressing YOUR paradigmatic MEANING into the text.

Example: Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Eisegesis: "Water" speaks of "Ritual baptism", because any mention of "water" can't refer to anything else.
Exegesis: "Water" speaks of "Natural birth", which fits with the overall context of the passage - contrasting "Natural" and "Spiritual" conditions.

 

[dwight92070]

Also, no other place in scripture refers to water baptism as being "born of water". So to interpret this as "baptized in water" is a big stretch, especially since CHILDBIRTH was spoken of in the verse before this. Jesus' comments were acknowledging and clarifying what Nicodemus said about childbirth.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Eisegesis is what you are doing. Paul clearly speaks of Gentiles/non-Jewish people and the OT speaks of of “those who are not a people” becoming “a people”, (Hosea 2:23) that the children of Abraham are those who believe, not those who are genetically Abraham’s children. (Rom 2:28-29, Rom 4:16)

Doug

Those that are not His people are His people He divorced. Everything in Scripture is centered around the Hebrew people. There is also Saul quoting Jeremiah who God called Israel His Olive tree. But when Saul brings up the disobedient Hebrews whom are grafted in again to the Olive tree Gentiles say that Saul is talking about Gentiles being grafted into the Olive tree despite the fact that God NEVER called Gentiles an Olive tree. So, if there is no precedent in the Old Testament, then there is no reality in the New Testament. So, WHO is REALLY adding to the Scripture things that are not there? Not me. As a born-again Christians we are ALL who are born-again supposed to TAKE OUT from the Old Testament what has been written and NOT add things that are not there.

Case in point. WHERE in the Old Testament does God make a covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles who come from the seed of Ham and Japheth? And yet people - maybe you - take Saul's words in Galatians 3:28-29 to say Gentiles are in the Abraham Covenant. But a careful examination of the chapters in which the Abraham Covenant is recorded there are no Gentiles mentioned or named as being in Abraham's covenant. ALL THREE HEBREW COVENANTS (Abraham, Mosaic, New) are between God and the Hebrew people. Do you break Scripture and add Gentiles in the Abraham covenant after the fact and when no Gentiles are mentioned as being in this covenant when God signed, sealed, and delivered it to Abraham and to his seed - his Hebrew seed. If there is no mention of Gentiles in any of the three Hebrew covenants and you among others add Gentiles to the covenants then you are adding to the bible, breaking Scripture, and violating the Word of God.
That's what you do.
I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 where the covenant is recorded for the Hebrew people to fall back on any mention of Gentiles in this covenant and NO ONE can do it. Do you want to know why? Because there are NO GENTILES in the Hebrew Covenants. NONE.

Jesus Christ died solely for the children of Israel in covenant with God. Gentiles excluded. This why many places Saul and the others say things like "and ALL ISRAEL shall be saved" no mention of ALL Gentiles. Why is that? Because again Gentiles are NOT in any covenant with God.
I don't add to the bible. You do. I don't add Gentiles into the Hebrew covenants. You and others do.
I take what is written and I don't add things into the narrative that are not there, never have been there, and never will be there. Who did Christ die for? The Holy Spirit of God who authored the Scripture says only those who are under the Law:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Ga 4:3–5.

Do you accept Saul's words as to who Christ died for?

 

[TomL]

Eisegesis is what you are doing. Paul clearly speaks of Gentiles/non-Jewish people and the OT speaks of of “those who are not a people” becoming “a people”, (Hosea 2:23) that the children of Abraham are those who believe, not those who are genetically Abraham’s children. (Rom 2:28-29, Rom 4:16)

Doug

Amen! He re-invents word meanings and denies scripture.

 

[360watt]

Who is speaking to whom?

What is the subject?

What is the occasion for speaking?

What is the time and place?

Ask these questions and the real meaning of the authors becomes clear.

Once you know this...then you can go to personal application.

 

[TibiasDad]

Do you accept Saul's words as to who Christ died for?

I accept Paul’s words, but I reject yours outright! The Bible extends hope to all people, for it says “whosoever believes” not “whosoever (among the genetically Jewish) believes”. Cornelius was definitively not Jewish, and yet was filled with the Holy Spirit, much to the amazement of the Jewish believers who assumed, as you have proclaimed, that only Jews could be saved. Luke, who wrote two of the books in the Bible, was not Jewish. And Paul, was specifically sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel to them.

Your thesis is preposterous on its face, and cannot withstand even the simplest of arguments against it!


Doug

 

[jeremiah1five]

I accept Paul’s words, but I reject yours outright! The Bible extends hope to all people, for it says “whosoever believes” not “whosoever (among the genetically Jewish) believes”. Cornelius was definitively not Jewish, and yet was filled with the Holy Spirit, much to the amazement of the Jewish believers who assumed, as you have proclaimed, that only Jews could be saved. Luke, who wrote two of the books in the Bible, was not Jewish. And Paul, was specifically sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel to them.

Your thesis is preposterous on its face, and cannot withstand even the simplest of arguments against it!


Doug

Let's break it down:

For whom did Christ die?

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

So, if you accept Saul's words then you accept Saul's words in which he himself agrees with me and I with him: Jesus Christ died for those under the Law. This means Christ died for the children of Israel for the children of Israel were under the Law.

#1. Under the Law God commanded through Moses a yearly sacrifice under the Law to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

#2. Christ, as lamb of God was sent by God as His sacrifice to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

#3. Saul saying Christ fulfilled the Law means Christ fulfilled every requirement of God placed upon the children of Israel - which they could not fulfill and that Christ, as substitute for the animal sacrifice died in its place to atone for the sins of the children of Israel, finally, eternally.

$4. The Holy Spirit of Promise was promised by God to and for the children of Israel. God would not violate His Word to Israel and give the Holy Spirit of Promise to non-Hebrew Gentiles with whom He has no covenant nor has God ever promised the Holy Spirit of Promise to non-Hebrew Gentiles.

#5. Salvation is of the Jews.

#6. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" and so everything from Genesis to Malachi reveals God's dealing with one people above all others on the face of the earth and that these "books" of the bible recods God dealing with this people with whom He has covenant.

#6a. The Abrahamic Covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew, and Abram's seed, a people later to be known as the children of Jacob/Israel.

#6b. The Mosaic Covenant is between God and the children of Jacob/Israel.

#6c. The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in his book (21:31-34) states that this covenant is between God and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

Now, Doug, have I said anything above not supported by Scripture? Have I lied?
Or have I told the biblical truth? Let's see if YOU are honest with Scripture or another deluded person.

 

[TibiasDad]

Let's break it down:

For whom did Christ die?

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

So, if you accept Saul's words then you accept Saul's words in which he himself agrees with me and I with him: Jesus Christ died for those under the Law. This means Christ died for the children of Israel for the children of Israel were under the Law.

#1. Under the Law God commanded through Moses a yearly sacrifice under the Law to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

#2. Christ, as lamb of God was sent by God as His sacrifice to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

#3. Saul saying Christ fulfilled the Law means Christ fulfilled every requirement of God placed upon the children of Israel - which they could not fulfill and that Christ, as substitute for the animal sacrifice died in its place to atone for the sins of the children of Israel, finally, eternally.

$4. The Holy Spirit of Promise was promised by God to and for the children of Israel. God would not violate His Word to Israel and give the Holy Spirit of Promise to non-Hebrew Gentiles with whom He has no covenant nor has God ever promised the Holy Spirit of Promise to non-Hebrew Gentiles.

#5. Salvation is of the Jews.

#6. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" and so everything from Genesis to Malachi reveals God's dealing with one people above all others on the face of the earth and that these "books" of the bible recods God dealing with this people with whom He has covenant.

#6a. The Abrahamic Covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew, and Abram's seed, a people later to be known as the children of Jacob/Israel.

#6b. The Mosaic Covenant is between God and the children of Jacob/Israel.

#6c. The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in his book (21:31-34) states that this covenant is between God and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

Now, Doug, have I said anything above not supported by Scripture? Have I lied?
Or have I told the biblical truth? Let's see if YOU are honest with Scripture or another deluded person.

Jeremiah, were Luke and Cornelius Jews or Gentiles? Were they not believers? Are they both not also in the scriptures, is not even Luke the author of two books thereof? Would the Lord allow a non believer to write holy scripture?

Is not the reality of one Gentile believer the death knell to your proposition?


Doug