Eisogesis - The art of reading your presuppositions into the Bible

[SavedByGrace3]

If we are to come to God already knowing his will why did Jesus teach us to pray, "Your will be done"

But I think you have to finish the sentence to understand it.
Thy will be done... on earth as it is in heaven."
He knew the will of the Father. We are to pray that what is in heaven takes place on earth also.

and pray himself, "Not my will, but Yours be done".

In this case the will of the Father was fully known. Jesus of course was not looking forward to what was ahead of Him and naturally would have wanted another way. Thing is, He knew the will of the Father and He followed it regardless of the horror that was coming.

But we cannot say that the will of the Father was NOT known in either case.

 

[victoryword]

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".

In the prayer that Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was NOT attempting to ascertain the will of God. He already knew what the will of God was concerning His death (Mat. 16:21, Mark 10:33, 34; John 10:15-18). Jesus was not praying to know the will of God. He was attempting to get God to change His mind.

The encouraging thing about the Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane is that it does not anger the Father if we seek Him for an alternative way. God has been known in Scripture to “change His mind” at certain times when people prayed. E. M. Bounds wrote, “He prayed, however, not in revolt against God’s will, but in submission to that will, and yet to change God’s plan and to alter God’s purposes He prayed.” (The Reality of Prayer).

It would also do Christians well to remember that this was not the only example of our Lord’s praying nor did He ever give any detailed teaching on praying the way that He did in Gethsemane.

The majority of our Lord’s teaching and examples on the subject of prayer was to pray with boldness, faith, authority and expectancy (Matt. 7:7-11; 18:18-20; Mark 11:22-24; John 14:12-14; 15:7). He also taught us that we are to pray with a tenacity that does not quit until it sees the answer (Luke 18:1-8).

As far as the teaching in what has been known as "The Lord's Prayer," every implication from the passage seems to state that God’s kingdom has not come (in its fullest sense) and God’s will is not being done. This could not be a prayer that simply acknowledges and submits to a sovereign all-controlling will, but a prayer that is in partnership with God in praying for His will to be done.

 

[victoryword]

But I think you have to finish the sentence to understand it.
Thy will be done... on earth as it is in heaven."
He knew the will of the Father. We are to pray that what is in heaven takes place on earth also.



In this case the will of the Father was fully known. Jesus of course was not looking forward to what was ahead of Him and naturally would have wanted another way. Thing is, He knew the will of the Father and He followed it regardless of the horror that was coming.

But we cannot say that the will of the Father was NOT known in either case.

Didn't see your post however you were able to cover my exact same thoughts with shorter sentences

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

right on, and the only comment I have at the moment

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Didn't see your post however you were able to cover my exact same thoughts with shorter sentences

You fleshed it out much better....
Sorry for butting in.
I need to quit that!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I wonder how the opposition to "strict contextualism" works into the OP.
Sometimes, especially in the OT, the real meaning that the Spirit intends seems to be masked behind what appears to be insignificant stories.

 

[victoryword]

I wonder how the opposition to "strict contextualism" works into the OP.
Sometimes, especially in the OT, the real meaning that the Spirit intends seems to be masked behind what appears to be insignificant stories.

One of the books some recommend on subjects like this is the E. W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated." As a matter of fact, this book talks about that Hebrew permissive tense so popular among WoFers

 

[SavedByGrace3]

One of the books some recommend on subjects like this is the E. W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated." As a matter of fact, this book talks about that Hebrew permissive tense so popular among WoFers

Thanks
I will keep my eyes open for it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

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

Oh dear. That is a slippery slope. I would say just define your terms and explain what you mean. So for example is someone uses the word "Trinity" maybe they would be helpful to explain their meaning, not simply ditch something because the bible doesn't use a specific word.

 

[enoch son]

I like where they place the "IN" christ where the greek say's "OF" christ. the in is works and the of is grace. Let alone the word draw is drag in the greek. I have found that when one places the right words in the word it become a greater statement of Jesus grace and a lessor statement of man's self righteouness.

 

[JimB]

One of the books some recommend on subjects like this is the E. W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated." As a matter of fact, this book talks about that Hebrew permissive tense so popular among WoFers

 

[pinetree]

Actually,this is a fine example of folks only seeing what they want to see,and denying what is there.

Most in the WOF movement eisegesis theses verses away.Although I do admit,to be fair,not all,W admits Paul was sick.

1 Timothy 5:23
Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.


Galatians 4:13
As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you.


2 Timothy 4:20
Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus.

And who can forget this great passage..

There were many,but only one was healed.

Kinda like today.

If my memory serves me,on another thread,B agreed it was one man.


John 5

The Healing at the Pool

2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.6When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?" 7"Sir," the invalid (singular)replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me."


There we have it folks.The proper use of all the text.Not just omitting things to serve a doctrine.

 

[victoryword]

Actually,this is a fine example of folks only seeing what they want to see,and denying what is there.

Most in the WOF movement eisegesis theses verses away.Although I do admit,to be fair,not all,W admits Paul was sick.

First, there is no such thing as "esiegting away a verse" since the meaning of eisegeting is to read one's presuppositions INTO a verse. That is exactly what YOU are doing with the passages you just quoted. You are reading into these verses the idea that God wills sickness, even though none of the verses teach that. When WoFers dispute you on the fact that it does NOT say what you claim they are saying then you make a false claim on the WoF. Now, let's examine your prooftexts.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=5&verse=23&version=31&context=verse

1 Timothy 5:23
Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=5&verse=23&version=31&context=versehttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=5&verse=23&version=31&context=verse

Now, I don't see any where in the passage that states that it was God's will for Timothy to be sick or even that Timothy was "suffering for the cause of Christ." Furthermore, I don't even see anywhere in the passage where God did not desire for Timothy to get well. If it were God's will for Timothy to be sick and suffer then why would Paul be inspired by the Holy Spirit to recommend that he drink some wine for his problems? Why not just say, "Tim, it is God's will that you suffer these frequent stomache illnesses. Now buck up and dure them like a good soldier"?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&verse=13&version=31&context=verse

Galatians 4:13
As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&verse=13&version=31&context=versehttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=4&verse=13&version=31&context=verse

We can all quote from the TRANSLATION that best fits our beliefs:

But you know that because of weakness of the flesh, I announced the gospel to you before (J.P. Green's Literal Translation)

you know that previously I preached the gospel to you in physical weakness, (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Howbeit ye know that, by reason of a weakness of the flesh, I myself announced the glad-message unto you, formerly (The J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible)

but you know that because of weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you the first time (World English Bible).
​

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=4&verse=20&version=31&context=verse

2 Timothy 4:20
Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=4&verse=20&version=31&context=versehttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=4&verse=20&version=31&context=verse

You have read three things into this passage:

It was God's will for Trophimus to be sick.
Trophimus never got healed.
Trophimus was suffering for the Lord
​

None of which are in the passage. I have prayed and left a number of people sick. Many later recovered. I have also prayed with people having marriage problems. Some still divorced. Was that God's will? Not according to Mal. 3:15-17. But by your criteria, someone being left without the desired answer to prayer is in the will of God and suffering for the Lord. Pure eisegesis.

And who can forget this great passage..

There were many,but only one was healed.

Kinda like today.

If my memory serves me,on another thread,B agreed it was one man.


John 5

The Healing at the Pool

2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.6When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?" 7"Sir," the invalid (singular)replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me."


There we have it folks.The proper use of all the text.Not just omitting things to serve a doctrine.

Once again, reading into the passage what is not there. Read the gospels and see those who came to Jesus for healing and how many were turned away. Then tell me how many of the disabled people by this pool came to Jesus for healing after they saw what Jesus did for this one man. How many of them that came to Him would have been dismissed the the idea that they were "suffering for God's glory?"

You have provided an excellent example of eisegesis in this post PinTree - YOUR bad habit of eisegesis shines through brilliantly.

 

[victoryword]

Yep - that be the book. I plan to purchase a copy myself (a used one. The price of a new one seems to be STEEP).

 

[hislegacy]

[/font]
First, there is no such thing as "esiegting away a verse" since the meaning of eisegeting is to read one's presuppositions INTO a verse. .

QFT - Good post - thought it was too long to quote the whole thing.

 

[JimB]

[/font]

First, there is no such thing as "esiegting away a verse" since the meaning of eisegeting is to read one's presuppositions INTO a verse.

But in order to eisegete our version of truth INTO a text wouldn’t we first have to eisegete God’s truth OUT of it?

Just straining at a gnat, B.

~Jim

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

 

[Supplanter]

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

So, what exactly is the metaphor here? I see no reason not to take the scripture literally when we know that all things are possible for God.

 

[pinetree]

So, what exactly is the metaphor here? I see no reason not to take the scripture literally when we know that all things are possible for God.

gosh.
Nevermind,you are welcome to take it as you wish,no problemo..piney

 

[Supplanter]

Let me know when you are ready to speak it into the sea..

I have Fox news on,good ole republican channel!

NO CNN!

Should not ba a big deal,Hagin jr says "you can have whatever you confess"!

Ok,it will ba an amazing testimony!

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question. It was pretty straightforward. I'd appreciate a straightforward answer. What is the metaphor?

As for this, to do such a thing as you suggest to meet your challenge for the sake of meeting your challenge, here and elsewhere would only be self-glorifying and completely unedifying to others. I'd be careful, because you could possibly be on the verge of mocking God and whether you believe the WOF doctrine or not, would it not be best to be cautious in what you say concerning what God is willing to do in response to a person's faith. Correct me if I am wrong, but your statement seems to suggest that it is impossible for someone to speak to a mountain in faith it be moved and cast into the sea, just because you have never been able to do it and have never met anyone who has proven that they can do it.

Just because no one may be able to deliver what you expect in your challenge does not mean that we should not take a literal interpretation. The Bible should never be interpreted through our experiential fallabilities as humans, which means that unless we see a Biblcal precedence not to take this verse literally, then we should take it as such.

Our inability to fulfill God's word should not cause us to disbelieve what is written, but should instead humble us and put us in the proper position to know that this is the work of Christ and not something we have or can do through own abilities.

So, seriously, you said this verse was a metaphor, so what does it represent/related to? I would sincerely like to know your interpretation of this scripture. Thanks.

 

[pinetree]

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question. It was pretty straightforward. I'd appreciate a straightforward answer. What is the metaphor?

As for this, to do such a thing as you suggest to meet your challenge for the sake of meeting your challenge, here and elsewhere would only be self-glorifying and completely unedifying to others. I'd be careful, because you could possibly be on the verge of mocking God and whether you believe the WOF doctrine or not, would it not be best to be cautious in what you say concerning what God is willing to do in response to a person's faith. Correct me if I am wrong, but your statement seems to suggest that it is impossible for someone to speak to a mountain in faith it be moved and cast into the sea, just because you have never been able to do it and have never met anyone who has proven that they can do it.

Just because no one may be able to deliver what you expect in your challenge does not mean that we should not take a literal interpretation. The Bible should never be interpreted through our experiential fallabilities as humans, which means that unless we see a Biblcal precedence not to take this verse literally, then we should take it as such.

Our inability to fulfill God's word should not cause us to disbelieve what is written, but should instead humble us and put us in the proper position to know that this is the work of Christ and not something we have or can do through own abilities.

So, seriously, you said this verse was a metaphor, so what does it represent/related to? I would sincerely like to know your interpretation of this scripture. Thanks.

You are welcome to take that one literally.

Give you a hint though.I would not tell someone to pluck out their eye if it caused them to sin.