Eisogesis - The art of reading your presuppositions into the Bible

[victoryword]

Exegesis - The art of explaining what a passage of Scripture actually means. This may be done by referring to original language word studies, background information, as well comparing it to other portions of Scripture. However, when one exegets a text, they are not reinterpreting it but simply bringing clarity to the meaning that is already there.

Eisogesis - The art of making a text say what YOU want it to say. Usually the eisogete already has certain beliefs and is simply looking through the Bible to find passages that will support that belief. The eisogete will ignore any passages that would dispute his belief and is simply looking to prooftext what he or she already desires to advocate. If there are any passages that seem to dispute his preconceived ideaology, he simply seeks to reinterpret them or apply a different hermeneutic to it (dispensational, cessationist, allegorical, etc.)

Examples:

1. Paul's thorn is a favoritely eisogeted text. Every where in the Bible that speaks of thorns is almost always a reference to trials and persecution at the hands of other human beings (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Judges 2:3). A search through any concordance or Bible software will reveal that "thorn" never equals "sickness." Yet many eisogetes must have their thorn=sickness theory in order to make a case that Christians must suffer sickness.
2. Job is another eisogeted book. In this book the eisogete has already approached it with a preconceived notion of what it means for God to be sovereign (which is usally "all-controlling") and the idea that "everything happens for a reason." Therefore the eisogete believes that God instigated the whole thing between Job and satan. The eisogete believes that God sicced the devil on Job and the application drawn from this is that every Christian enduring sickness is a modern Job. A true exegete would see that Satan was the one who suggested the horrible things should be done to Job. The exegete would also see that God was not happy at all with what Satan did to Job (Job 2:3) and finally, the exegete would understand that Job actually got healed and received double what he lost. The eisogete ignores the end of the Lord in Job (James 2:11).
3. The blind man in John 9 and Lazarus in John 11. The eisoget sees these passages as God making people sick for His glory. The exegete will read the CONTEXT and will also see the proper grammatical structure. The exegete will also see that the eisogete's preconceived notions does not line up with what Scripture reveals concerning the character or God and will look for the proper interpretation of such prooftexts.
4. Romans 8:28 is another favoritely eisogeted text. This prooftext implies that God is the "first cause" of all that happens and that He causes them to happen for some mysterious good. The eisogete is once agin quoting out of context. Keeping the passage in context, we see that it has to do with prayer (Rom. 8:26, 27) and our cooperation with God in bringing good in all situations.

We will look at more eisogeted texts later. As one can see, the eisogete is presumptuous and his goal is not to learn the TRUTH, but to simply prove wrong those whose theology he despises and to promote his own personal theological bias.

Eisogesis - it's what's for dinner.

 

[STRICTLY SCRIPTURE]

Exegesis - The art of explaining what a passage of Scripture actually means. This may be done by referring to original language word studies, background information, as well comparing it to other portions of Scripture. However, when one exegets a text, they are not reinterpreting it but simply bringing clarity to the meaning that is already there.

Eisogesis - The art of making a text say what YOU want it to say. Usually the eisogete already has certain beliefs and is simply looking through the Bible to find passages that will support that belief. The eisogete will ignore any passages that would dispute his belief and is simply looking to prooftext what he or she already desires to advocate. If there are any passages that seem to dispute his preconceived ideaology, he simply seeks to reinterpret them or apply a different hermeneutic to it (dispensational, cessationist, allegorical, etc.)

Examples:

1. Paul's thorn is a favoritely eisogeted text. Every where in the Bible that speaks of thorns is almost always a reference to trials and persecution at the hands of other human beings (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Judges 2:3). A search through any concordance or Bible software will reveal that "thorn" never equals "sickness." Yet many eisogetes must have their thorn=sickness theory in order to make a case that Christians must suffer sickness.
2. Job is another eisogeted book. In this book the eisogete has already approached it with a preconceived notion of what it means for God to be sovereign (which is usally "all-controlling") and the idea that "everything happens for a reason." Therefore the eisogete believes that God instigated the whole thing between Job and satan. The eisogete believes that God sicced the devil on Job and the application drawn from this is that every Christian enduring sickness is a modern Job. A true exegete would see that Satan was the one who suggested the horrible things should be done to Job. The exegete would also see that God was not happy at all with what Satan did to Job (Job 2:3) and finally, the exegete would understand that Job actually got healed and received double what he lost. The eisogete ignores the end of the Lord in Job (James 2:11).
3. The blind man in John 9 and Lazarus in John 11. The eisoget sees these passages as God making people sick for His glory. The exegete will read the CONTEXT and will also see the proper grammatical structure. The exegete will also see that the eisogete's preconceived notions does not line up with what Scripture reveals concerning the character or God and will look for the proper interpretation of such prooftexts.
4. Romans 8:28 is another favoritely eisogeted text. This prooftext implies that God is the "first cause" of all that happens and that He causes them to happen for some mysterious good. The eisogete is once agin quoting out of context. Keeping the passage in context, we see that it has to do with prayer (Rom. 8:26, 27) and our cooperation with God in bringing good in all situations.

We will look at more eisogeted texts later. As one can see, the eisogete is presumptuous and his goal is not to learn the TRUTH, but to simply prove wrong those whose theology he despises and to promote his own personal theological bias.

Eisogesis - it's what's for dinner.

Are you trinitarian or oneness?

 

[WileyCoyote]

Eisogesis - it's what's for dinner.

Then I think I'll go on a fast.

Good job, Victoryword.

Now THIS is "STRICTLY SCRIPTURE".

 

[STRICTLY SCRIPTURE]

Then I think I'll go on a fast.

Good job, Victoryword.

Now THIS is "STRICTLY SCRIPTURE".

Ohhh...just curious..It does not say.."Trinity" yet many believe in it,they come to a conclusion.Just like as some understand that Paul was ill from his afflictions that God allowed.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Ohhh...just curious..It does not say.."Trinity" yet many believe in it,they come to a conclusion.Just like as some understand that Paul was ill from his afflictions that God allowed.

I tend to agree... we should get rid of that terminology that cannot be found in scripture.
Take care SS.. you can get a warning for coming out against the trinity or in favor of oneness.
But it is encouraging to see that you place the "thron = sickness" theory in the same category as other extra Biblical terminology.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Great stuff VW.
I am looking forward to seeing what other examples you may have!

 

[WileyCoyote]

I tend to agree... we should get rid of that terminology that cannot be found in scripture.
Take care SS.. you can get a warning for coming out against the trinity or in favor of oneness.
But it is encouraging to see that you place the "thron = sickness" theory in the same category as other extra Biblical terminology.

Amen. The word "trinity" as well as the phrase "Paul's thorn was a sickness" have one thing in common:

Neither can be found in the scriptures.

 

[Markus6]

Exegesis - getting my interpretation out of scripture
Eisegesis - getting your interpretation out of scripture

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

The road goes both ways, victoryword. I've seen many people on both sides do both forms. Problem isn't with Eisegesis, it is with the fact that both sides use both methods to get their interpretations.

 

[JimB]

Exegesis - The art of explaining what a passage of Scripture actually means. This may be done by referring to original language word studies, background information, as well comparing it to other portions of Scripture. However, when one exegets a text, they are not reinterpreting it but simply bringing clarity to the meaning that is already there.

Eisogesis - The art of making a text say what YOU want it to say. Usually the eisogete already has certain beliefs and is simply looking through the Bible to find passages that will support that belief. The eisogete will ignore any passages that would dispute his belief and is simply looking to prooftext what he or she already desires to advocate. If there are any passages that seem to dispute his preconceived ideaology, he simply seeks to reinterpret them or apply a different hermeneutic to it (dispensational, cessationist, allegorical, etc.)

Examples:

1. Paul's thorn is a favoritely eisogeted text. Every where in the Bible that speaks of thorns is almost always a reference to trials and persecution at the hands of other human beings (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Judges 2:3). A search through any concordance or Bible software will reveal that "thorn" never equals "sickness." Yet many eisogetes must have their thorn=sickness theory in order to make a case that Christians must suffer sickness.
2. Job is another eisogeted book. In this book the eisogete has already approached it with a preconceived notion of what it means for God to be sovereign (which is usally "all-controlling") and the idea that "everything happens for a reason." Therefore the eisogete believes that God instigated the whole thing between Job and satan. The eisogete believes that God sicced the devil on Job and the application drawn from this is that every Christian enduring sickness is a modern Job. A true exegete would see that Satan was the one who suggested the horrible things should be done to Job. The exegete would also see that God was not happy at all with what Satan did to Job (Job 2:3) and finally, the exegete would understand that Job actually got healed and received double what he lost. The eisogete ignores the end of the Lord in Job (James 2:11).
3. The blind man in John 9 and Lazarus in John 11. The eisoget sees these passages as God making people sick for His glory. The exegete will read the CONTEXT and will also see the proper grammatical structure. The exegete will also see that the eisogete's preconceived notions does not line up with what Scripture reveals concerning the character or God and will look for the proper interpretation of such prooftexts.
4. Romans 8:28 is another favoritely eisogeted text. This prooftext implies that God is the "first cause" of all that happens and that He causes them to happen for some mysterious good. The eisogete is once agin quoting out of context. Keeping the passage in context, we see that it has to do with prayer (Rom. 8:26, 27) and our cooperation with God in bringing good in all situations.

We will look at more eisogeted texts later. As one can see, the eisogete is presumptuous and his goal is not to learn the TRUTH, but to simply prove wrong those whose theology he despises and to promote his own personal theological bias.

Eisogesis - it's what's for dinner.

So, it is only those who differ with you (me, for example) who are guilty of eisegesis and in error but not you (of course)?

BTW, you misspelled eisegesis.

~Jim

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.​

 

[JEBrady]

I've seen men of God get the right word with the wrong scripture, e.g. worst_exegesis_ever. The prime example was from a prophet and one of the greatest encouragers I've ever seen. But he couldn't teach his way out of a wet paper bag. The interesting thing was he got it right anyway, even though he couldn't show it properly in scripture. Jeepers, even I could have told him scriptures that supported what he said. But he had the anointing, and God would use him to speak the truth, and the spirit bore witness to it.

Then there was the guy who thought Adam & Eve was a myth, and still he was able to bring forth the truth out of the scriptures on Adam and Eve in a depth I have rarely witnessed. He was full of the holy spirit, wisdom and revelation.

When it comes to explaining scripture, exegesis is the way to go. That eliminates a lot of error, but it's not enough on its own. One must also have the spirit of wisdom and revelation to apprehend the truth, for the natural mind doesn't accept the things of the spirit. We have to have God reveal this stuff to us, and the condition of our hearts is far more important than our methodology in approaching scripture. We don't need to know every word by heart if we have the spirit of wisdom and revelation and we have a pure heart.

Just the same, eisegesis 0, exegesis 1.

 

[STRICTLY SCRIPTURE]

I tend to agree... we should get rid of that terminology that cannot be found in scripture.
Take care SS.. you can get a warning for coming out against the trinity or in favor of oneness.
But it is encouraging to see that you place the "thron = sickness" theory in the same category as other extra Biblical terminology.

I did not know I cant mention the trinity? Thanks for telling me.Is it really not allowed,lol I guess.It proves a point that there is an obvious conclusion that floating at sea,beaten ,whipped,sleeplessness,hunger,would produce illness.Of this we must presume that God knew that,when Paul asked to have it removed.It was not,and he learned through it,as we see in 2 Corinthians 4:12-15.

 

[JimB]

I tend to agree... we should get rid of that terminology that cannot be found in scripture.
*****

Is the word “terminology” found in the Bible? If so, what version?

Heck, even the word “Bible” isn’t found in the Bible. Should we never use the word again?

~Jim

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.​

 

[STRICTLY SCRIPTURE]

So, it is only those who differ with you (me, for example) who are guilty of eisegesis and in error but not you (of course)?

BTW, you misspelled eisegesis.

~Jim

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.​

unvictory speller!

 

[StevenL]

Eisogesis - We both do it, but YOU won't admit it.

 

[JimLandress]

Exegesis - The art of explaining what a passage of Scripture actually means. This may be done by referring to original language word studies, background information, as well comparing it to other portions of Scripture. However, when one exegets a text, they are not reinterpreting it but simply bringing clarity to the meaning that is already there.

Eisogesis - The art of making a text say what YOU want it to say. Usually the eisogete already has certain beliefs and is simply looking through the Bible to find passages that will support that belief. The eisogete will ignore any passages that would dispute his belief and is simply looking to prooftext what he or she already desires to advocate. If there are any passages that seem to dispute his preconceived ideaology, he simply seeks to reinterpret them or apply a different hermeneutic to it (dispensational, cessationist, allegorical, etc.)

Examples:

1. Paul's thorn is a favoritely eisogeted text. Every where in the Bible that speaks of thorns is almost always a reference to trials and persecution at the hands of other human beings (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Judges 2:3). A search through any concordance or Bible software will reveal that "thorn" never equals "sickness." Yet many eisogetes must have their thorn=sickness theory in order to make a case that Christians must suffer sickness.
2. Job is another eisogeted book. In this book the eisogete has already approached it with a preconceived notion of what it means for God to be sovereign (which is usally "all-controlling") and the idea that "everything happens for a reason." Therefore the eisogete believes that God instigated the whole thing between Job and satan. The eisogete believes that God sicced the devil on Job and the application drawn from this is that every Christian enduring sickness is a modern Job. A true exegete would see that Satan was the one who suggested the horrible things should be done to Job. The exegete would also see that God was not happy at all with what Satan did to Job (Job 2:3) and finally, the exegete would understand that Job actually got healed and received double what he lost. The eisogete ignores the end of the Lord in Job (James 2:11).
3. The blind man in John 9 and Lazarus in John 11. The eisoget sees these passages as God making people sick for His glory. The exegete will read the CONTEXT and will also see the proper grammatical structure. The exegete will also see that the eisogete's preconceived notions does not line up with what Scripture reveals concerning the character or God and will look for the proper interpretation of such prooftexts.
4. Romans 8:28 is another favoritely eisogeted text. This prooftext implies that God is the "first cause" of all that happens and that He causes them to happen for some mysterious good. The eisogete is once agin quoting out of context. Keeping the passage in context, we see that it has to do with prayer (Rom. 8:26, 27) and our cooperation with God in bringing good in all situations.

We will look at more eisogeted texts later. As one can see, the eisogete is presumptuous and his goal is not to learn the TRUTH, but to simply prove wrong those whose theology he despises and to promote his own personal theological bias.

Eisogesis - it's what's for dinner.

good post

 

[victoryword]

So, it is only those who differ with you (me, for example) who are guilty of eisegesis and in error but not you (of course)?

Of course. Certainly you did not think that I would believe otherwise, didja?

BTW, you misspelled eisegesis.

~Jim

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.​

Thanks. I'll try to remember that for future posts.

 

[victoryword]

Are you trinitarian or oneness?

Here's your mistake:

The concept of a TRIUNE GODHEAD (what some refer to as "the Trinity") is found throughout Scripture and especially the New Testament. The Bible, in so many places, describes three completely separate individuals who are all said to be "God" - yet, we are told there is only ONE God or that God is ONE (unity).

To believe in a triune Godhead is derived from EXEGESIS and not eisegesis.

To believe that "thorn" is "sickness" is definitely "eisegesis" because the passages in the Bible that actually uses thorns as a metaphor either describes them as humans who cause others problems, as "cares of this world" (see Mark 4) or some other object unrelated to sickness. NEVER, and I mean NOT EVER does any passage in Scripture describe a thorn as a sickness.

That is if you stick STRICTLY with SCRIPTURE

 

[victoryword]

Another example of eisegesis found often among WoF detractors is their reading of 1 John 5:14, 15:

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him (1 John 5:14, 15).
​

There are some who seem to feel that this passage leaves answers to prayer at the mercy of a mysterious sovereign will of God. The way that so many interpret this otherwise powerful teaching on prayer is by the idea that we can ask God for something, but we could never really know for sure if what we are asking for is God’s will. If it is His will, we will get it. If it is not, then we won’t.

The passage, when kept in context, is far from teaching a lack of certainty concerning answers to prayer. It actually teaches how we can experience answers rather than mere “hits and misses.”The passage should be interpreted from both the immediate and the wide context. First let us deal with the immediate context:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. (1 John 5:16).
​

One of the definitions in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary for shall is “will have to, is determined to, or definitely will.”

Two Greek words used here: ask is aiteo which means “the humble petition of an inferior.” The word pray is erotao which according to Canon Faussett “savors of presumption; prescribing to God what lies out of the bounds of brotherly yearning.”

In essence, it is the will of God for us to pray for the one that is not sinning unto death and expect God to give that person life. This is the revealed will of God. This is God’s will made very clear and there is no need to pray for one sinning unto death and wonder if the prayer was in accordance with His will. The word of God in verse 16 makes God’s will on the matter very clear.

Notice also that life for the sinning one is dependent upon someone praying. God may be willing to give life but if no one prays it will not happen. The will of God is so often dependent upon our praying for its fulfillment. This is why intercessory prayer is vital and important in the body of Christ.

On the other hand, verse 16 makes it very clear what is not the will of God. The instruction in this verse is that we are not to even waste time praying for it. Therefore, verses 14 and 15 when kept in context is not asking us to “pray and guess” the will of God. It is not asking us to pray and take chances on whether or not we actually prayed in line with His will. According to verse 16, we are to know the will of God on the matter before we set out to pray and we are not to pray for things that are made clear are not God’s will to answer.

The premise of those opposed to what we teach is the idea that the Word of God is insufficient to reveal God's will as far as prayer is concerned. Yet James 1:5-7 is a prime example of God revealing His will to give "wisdom" as well as the fact that such will not given until it is asked for in faith. Those who take a fatalistic view of 1 John 5:14, 15 are the ones who only take select parts of Scripture and from that persist in a fatalistic view that would not be seen when taken in context. This is called "eisegesis."

 

[Markus6]

On the other hand, verse 16 makes it very clear what is not the will of God. The instruction in this verse is that we are not to even waste time praying for it. Therefore, verses 14 and 15 when kept in context is not asking us to “pray and guess” the will of God. It is not asking us to pray and take chances on whether or not we actually prayed in line with His will. According to verse 16, we are to know the will of God on the matter before we set out to pray and we are not to pray for things that are made clear are not God’s will to answer.

If we are to come to God already knowing his will why did Jesus teach us to pray, "Your will be done" and pray himself, "Not my will, but Yours be done".