Eisegesis

Q. Mark 9:1 “see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” The transfiguration is a microcosm of the glory of God’s kingdom. Jesus appeared in the center with Moses and Elijah. In the Jewish minds, this affirms the true important stature of Jesus. Should we read more into it than this, making it into eisegesis? Putting our words into God’s mouth! Is my conjecture out of line?

Only Luke conveys the content of the conversation, not Matthew or Mark. Luke portrays Jesus Christ as Savior. Might it be Luke’s reason to reveal God’s plan for salvation, a prophecy of what is going to happen in the near and distant future? Jesus’ exodus from the world (death, resurrection, and ascension) is for the salvation of the world, including the gentiles. By grace, in the future, the two witnesses are partners in the plan for the salvation of the chosen people. Prophesies are from God/Jesus. He fulfilled the OT prophesies of salvation for human beings as in Genesis 3:15.

God/Jesus is the lawgiver. He fulfills the law for salvation. The OT Moses’ laws condemn sinners to death. The NT Jesus frees the sinners from death (and gives life) with His own blood as required by the law. Leviticus 17:11″For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”  John 1:14 Moses mediated the law, Christ mediated grace and truth. Deut. 18:15-19, Moses prophesized a prophet like him will come. Moses represents both the law and prophet. Jesus Christ has fulfilled both laws and prophecies.

I do not think Elijah has ever prophesied about Jesus or much of other things besides curses. Besides God’s wonders done through Elijah, it seems that the only reason Elijah was among these three is because of Malachi 4:5-6 “Elijah will be sent before Jesus’ second coming of the awesome day of the Lord. “

The time of Jacob’s trouble will be the time for the Jews. Moses and Elijah were both Jacob’s descendants. The two lampstands and the two olive trees are all Jewish terms. Enoch was not Jewish. The presence of Jesus talking about salvation with the 2 Jews might point to John 4:22 Salvation is from the Jews. The appearance of the OT Jewish saints together with the NT Jewish savior of the world might point to Ephesian 2:14. God has not told us their names. Perhaps He wants us to concentrate on glorifying Him for the wonders done by the witnesses whoever they are.

A. A large part of your “question” is your view on the topic, not a query. I will therefore respond only to your actual question in italics.

Eisegesis is reading your own ideas and presuppositions into the text, as opposed to exegesis which is drawing out the author’s meaning based on an analysis of the text, context, including the historical and cultural background, grammar, and genre. Eisegesis is subjective, while exegesis is objective, based on evidence. I am of the “old school,” and against eisegesis, which makes the scripture say what you want it to say. I stand 100% on exegesis. So we should not read more into a text than its plain and implied meaning. To do more would be to put words into God’s mouth, which is the sin of false prophets and false teachers.

Having said that, much of your comments are not wrong, as they are based on other scriptures. It is just that that is not what Mk 9:1 said. In expounding a passage, you can use Scripture to explain Scripture. If we must understand a certain subject, God will repeat the lesson in other passages to make sure we get it. Just state the related passages you are bringing in so that readers know where you are coming from, and whether those passages are indeed relevant. To say that all these ideas come from the single text you are expounding would be out of line.

For example, my views on Luke’s record of the Transfiguration are in:

Transfiguration

Whether you agree or disagree, the rationale and supporting verses are all listed for you to verify or challenge. I have learned from the thousands of sermons I have listened to, and from the thousands of articles and hundreds of books I have read over the years. All of these contributed to shaping my opinion when I wrote this post. But to assume all of that came out of Lk 9:31 would be wrong.

Submission to God

Q. I was reading Ps 25:4. In the Expositor Bible Comm., it says,” True godliness is not the outward conformity to God’s law but the spiritual application of God’s law to one’s life BY GOD HIMSELF. The psalmist prays for the internalization of God’s word . Submission is not to a set of principles or to a legal system but to the “Savior” (v.5). How does this work that it is a spiritual application BY GOD HIMSELF?

Spiritual application of God’s law to one’s life is for God’s protection against the potential harm to oneself against the divine design installed. That I understood and appreciated. If true godliness comes NOT from any desire (internal, which I have) of oneself to conform to God’s law (internal leading to external, which I have often fail repeated, though strugglingly), and is purely application of God’s law to one’s life BY GOD HIMSELF, what did I miss?

A. I’ll show you the steps I take to answer your question.

I always start with the text. Exegesis always goes from what the text say, not what I think it say, so step 1 is to go back to the original. Since I studied only a little orginal languages in seminary, I use an interlinear, augmented by literal translations. The first Hebrew verb in Ps 25:4 is yada, which means “Make me know”.

Next, I check several leading word-for-word translations:

• LEB Make me know your ways, O Yahweh. Teach me your paths.
• NASB Make me know Your ways, O Lord; Teach me Your paths.
• MEB Make me to know Your ways, O Lord; teach me Your paths.
• AMP Let me know Your ways, O Lord; Teach me Your paths.
• WEB Show me your ways, Yahweh. Teach me your paths.
• NKJV Show me Your ways, O Lord; Teach me Your paths.
• ESV Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths.

I do not use thought-for-thought translations at this point, to minimize the translators introducing their own bias/theological slant. I use dynamic-equivalence translations too, but only after I’ve observed what the word-for-word say. The different versions are consistent in saying that the initiative must come from God in order that we can know His ways.

Third, to make sure my observations & interpretation are on the right track, I look up cross-references to see if my preliminary deductions/conclusions are taught elsewhere in the Bible. The following are relevant:

• Ps 5:8 O Lord, lead me in Your righteousness because of my foes;
  make Your way straight before me.
• Ps 27:11 Teach me Your way, O Lord, and lead me in a level path because of my foes.
• Ps 86:11 Teach me Your way, O Lord; I will walk in Your truth; unite my heart to fear Your name.
• Ps 119:27 Make me understand the way of Your precepts, so I will meditate on Your wonders.
• Ps 143:8 Let me hear Your lovingkindness in the morning; for I trust in You; teach me the way in which I should walk; for to You I lift up my soul.
• Ex 33:13 Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found favor in Your sight, let me know Your ways that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your sight. Consider too, that this nation is Your people.

Again, the idea is that God must lead and teach so that man can understand. Obviously, the compiler would include a reference only if he/she considers the same idea is conveyed. So, this step is confirmatory, not primary.

Fourth, I consult commentaries to see how others have interpreted this verse. This is to see if I’ve overlooked things others picked up on. Your Expositor Bible Comm.’s “the spiritual application of God’s law to one’s life BY GOD HIMSELF” essentially says the same thing – that God must take the first step, not man. I quote from Pulpit Comm. “Man is so wanting in spiritual understanding, so morally blind and ignorant, that, unless enlightened from on high, he cannot discern aright the “way of godliness;” he does not know at any given moment what God would have him to do.

This is my simplistic understanding. I believe the desire to conform to God’s law is good, but in and of itself the desire is not enough, only God’s grace in enabling us is. Rom 7:18-19 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. This reflects my Calvinistic understanding. Hope this helps.

Five Foolish Virgins (2 of 2)

(Continued from yesterday)

The second premise is that since the foolish virgins have oil, which in Scripture represents the Holy Spirit, they must be Christians. As evidence, supporters of this view cite:

• Mt 25:3 AMP For when the foolish took their lamps, they did not take any [extra] oil with them,
• Mt 25:8 The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’

It is true that oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit:

• Lk 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed,
• Acts 10:38 You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

and that without the Holy Spirit an individual cannot be a Christian:

• Rom 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

but the key is “do the foolish virgins have any oil”?

Notice that the word “extra” in Mt 25:3 AMP is in brackets, which means it is NOT in the Greek text, but supplied by the translators. Most literal word-for-word translations have:

• NASB For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,
• ESV For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,
• NKJV Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them,

Then how can their lamps be going out if they weren’t burning, which implied they had oil? To understand this, we need to know what type of lamps they were. The word “lamp” translates the Greek word “lampas”, which primarily means a torch, and appears 9 times in the NT:

• Of the lamps in the parable – Mt 25:1, 3, 4, 7, 8;
• When Judas betrays Jesus – Jn 18:3;
• In the upper room where Paul preached – Acts 20:8;
• In Rev 4:5, 8:10.

They were not small “Aladdin” style clay oil lamps, but clubs wrapped at the top with linen which were dipped in oil and then lit. When the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps (Mt 25:4), it wasn’t to add more oil when the oil in the supposed clay lamps burned out, it was to dip the torches in so the linen can be soaked in oil and lit. The foolish virgins who took their lamps but no oil with them (v 3) can still light them because of oil residue from the last use, but they go out immediately because there is no oil, period. Otherwise why would all five lamps go out at the same time? And, if they never had oil or the Holy Spirit to begin with, they were never saved.

Now if the foolish virgins were never saved in the first place, everything fits. My interpretation is therefore that the foolish virgins are in the company of the wise virgins, looked like them, participated in the same activities, but are not genuine believers. They are like the seeds that fell on the rocky places and immediately sprang up (lamps lit) but withered away (lamps going out) because they had no root (oil) (Mt 13:5-6). Or they are like tares sown among the wheat. They looked like wheat until the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident (Mt 13:5-6) by their lack of fruit. You will know them by their fruits (Mt 7:16, 20).

Having unlocked this key, let’s go back to your original questions. Will the foolish virgins be raptured? No, the rapture is for Christians only. Do they have to wait until they know Christ? Yes, because they are not believers. But I want to address the issue of partial rapture as well – I believe it is not biblical. There are two key passages on the rapture:

• 1 Thes 4:17-18 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
• 1 Co 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

You can observe that:

• The order of the rapture is the dead in Christ first, then those (Christians) who are alive when He returns;
• We will all be changed (from perishable to imperishable, from mortal to immortal);
• There is no distinction into grades of Christians, diligent vs. lazy, because it does not depend on works, but grace. If you are in Christ, whether already dead or still alive, you will be raised and raptured.

Partial rapture divides the one Body of Christ into parts that will be raptured and parts that won’t. That’s not scriptural. May I suggest you always base your doctrine on the text. Don’t start with your pet doctrine and try to find support in Scripture. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis. Hope this helps.

Are Christians “little gods”?

Q. I heard a prosperity gospel preacher say Christians are “little gods”, because they are God’s children and share His divinity. Is this valid?

A. No, it’s not valid. He is the Creator; we are His creatures. He is divine; we are human. God alone is God. Besides Him there is no other gods:

• Deut 4:35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.
• Isa 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
• Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,
• Isa 45:21b-22 Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.
• Isa 46:9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

The error arises from a misinterpretation of Jn 10:34 quoting Ps 82:6:

• Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?
• Ps 82:6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

Jesus quoted Ps 82:6 to argue from the lesser to the greater (Jn 10:35-38). If God called rulers on earth (v 7) “gods” because they represent Him, then Jesus whom the Father chose and did the Father’s work can rightly call Himself “God’s Son”.

• Ps 82:5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
• Ps 82:7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

The “gods”, kings and judges who represented God, were really ignorant (v 5) and mortal (v 7), not gods at all, mere fallible human beings who perverted justice. If they can be called “gods”, then the Jews were wrong in accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Yet this proper interpretation did not prevent people from twisting God’s word and imposing their own meaning onto the text. The Word of Faith movement had argued from this and other misinterpreted Scriptures that Christians are “little gods”, and that they can “name it and claim it” because as gods their words have power. This “prosperity gospel” or “health and wealth gospel” is really a perversion of the true gospel and heretical. It is dangerous to go beyond what the Bible actually said, and twisting Scripture to inject your own ideas into the text, which cults do all the time. Every text then becomes a pretext.

Our goal should be exegesis, drawing out from the text what the word of God actually said. To do otherwise would be eisegesis. And if you torture a text long enough it will confess to whatever you want it to say. Let me borrow from Rev 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. Do exegesis, not eisegesis.