These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. - Acts 17:11
Be A Berean!
The Bereans searching the Scriptures
I was the unfortunate recipient of a rather blase' statement from a now former pastor, in which he informed me that the reason why pastors, preachers, teachers, evangelists, and so-called prophets, don't always teach sound doctrine, is because they are human and make "mistakes", or in other words, they sin. Really? I got this astonishing reply in response to my questions that obviously made him uncomfortable, regarding another preacher, who I had heard teach some very strange things. That preacher in question was Jerry Savelle (I name names), a so-called minster of God, who gave a teaching on the un-scriptural premise that we are to live with "No Boundaries" like God does. More on that later.
Well, that may sound like a good excuse for sloppy exegesis and false doctrine, but the Bible doesn't support the, 'we're all sinners' theory. You are either a teacher of sound doctrine, or you aren't, there isn't "Mr. In-between." Even if anyone teaches any unsound doctrine unintentionally, they are still considered a false teacher, which brings to my mind part of a song from my youth - "be careful little lips what you say! . . ." Scripture offers many admonishments to would be teachers, that they will be held accountable to Jesus for what they teach. In light of the fact that Jesus is an awesome God, that should make us quake in our shoes, and be very careful of what we say and especially of what we do. He brought us into this world, and he can take us out, who can withstand him? "O-o-o-o-o-o-o, I just shuddered there.
Anyway, we Christians must learn our faith not only by hearing and reading, but we are to uphold, live out, and patiently defend sound doctrine. I can't find one scripture that condones this notion of false doctrine as being a natural and acceptable part of a Christian's walk, not one! The idea of excusing false teaching as a by-product of sin is true enough, they are indeed sinning, but that fact doesn't condone the teaching of unsound doctrine. What I mean is that Paul and the other disciples had their own battles with sin, but they taught sound doctrine - always. Christians are repeatedly admonished to uphold and defend sound doctrine; we are warned many times to keep and defend the pure gospel and our faith from being tainted by false teachers and their old wives tales, and doctrines of demons. Is anybody really listening to this repeated warning? Judging by the millions caught in heretical doctrine, man-made denominations, and cults, apparently not.
The Bible says of the Bereans, in Acts 17:11, that they were more fair-minded, or literally, more 'noble' minded, than the Jews in Thessalonica, and they received the word with readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things (what Paul preached) were so. Wow, if only more of us did that today, then there would be a lot less cults and divisions as a result of false teaching! Because of this noble attitude, the Bible says that many of them (Jews in Berea) believed and so did many of the Greeks, and prominent women, as well as men. The Bereans were mostly Jews, and as such, that means they were familiar with Scripture. Oh yes, they knew the Scriptures even though they mostly followed the traditions of men, or Judaism. That is all that is said of these amazing people, but what a wonderful testimony and example they provided for us all!
I wonder if many Christians realize that the Bereans searched the Old Testament Scriptures (O.T.) and not the New Testament (N.T.) Scriptures, since they were in the process of being written. And they didn't have any other tools to help them understand the written text. It would have been impossible for them to whip out a complete Bible like we have and pour through it's pages. This brings me to a point I would like to make. The O.T. is the foundation of the N.T. And to think that some Christians want to do away with the O.T. entirely - - well, that would be an error of epic proportions! Why, that would be the sin of taking away from God's word, just as serious a crime as adding to it would be. What do these would be biblical editors think Isaiah meant in chapter 28:9-10 when he wrote ". . . line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept. . . ?" Just as in Isaiah's day, there are going to be mockers of God's word, who claim that anyone who dares to teach them sound doctrine is a babbler of nonsense. But ironically, even though the back sliding Israelites were mocking Isaiah in those verses, one must learn the word of God in this way. You can't build anything without some sort of foundation to build upon.
Children learn with consistent repetitive instruction from their parents and all those around them. They are taught the basics of any subject, and when these basics are mastered, then more detailed instructions are given. Any conflicting information will cause confusion and hinder learning. The basics of Christianity are rooted in the O.T. Doing away with the O.T. is justified by the reasoning that the N.T. covenant promises are better and have replaced the O.T. promises and covenant. This is true to a degree, but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that the N.T. is the better or "re-newed" or "new and improved" covenant. Jesus Himself said He didn't come to do away with the OT, but to fulfill it. The N.T. rests on the sure foundation of the O.T. but it is built up with new and better materials. To remove the firm foundation of any building is foolish, unless you want it to topple. Besides, we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
So what does it entail to be like the Bereans? Simply this, pour over the O.T. Scriptures next time you hear your pastor or another preacher who is telling you about a "new" revelation he/she got from the LORD, and see if what they say is so. If it isn't taught in all of Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, then it is a doctrine of demons. What about a "new spin" they are excited to teach about regarding established doctrines like faith, salvation, spiritual and physical wholeness, and prayer? Again, if their teachings don't line up with sound Scriptural doctrine, then it is a false teaching, so don't accept it. If you can, correct the erring teacher in a loving and patient manner, and if they accept the correction, wonderful! If not, then mark them as a wolf in sheep's clothing and warn the other sheep.
Well, that may sound like a good excuse for sloppy exegesis and false doctrine, but the Bible doesn't support the, 'we're all sinners' theory. You are either a teacher of sound doctrine, or you aren't, there isn't "Mr. In-between." Even if anyone teaches any unsound doctrine unintentionally, they are still considered a false teacher, which brings to my mind part of a song from my youth - "be careful little lips what you say! . . ." Scripture offers many admonishments to would be teachers, that they will be held accountable to Jesus for what they teach. In light of the fact that Jesus is an awesome God, that should make us quake in our shoes, and be very careful of what we say and especially of what we do. He brought us into this world, and he can take us out, who can withstand him? "O-o-o-o-o-o-o, I just shuddered there.
Anyway, we Christians must learn our faith not only by hearing and reading, but we are to uphold, live out, and patiently defend sound doctrine. I can't find one scripture that condones this notion of false doctrine as being a natural and acceptable part of a Christian's walk, not one! The idea of excusing false teaching as a by-product of sin is true enough, they are indeed sinning, but that fact doesn't condone the teaching of unsound doctrine. What I mean is that Paul and the other disciples had their own battles with sin, but they taught sound doctrine - always. Christians are repeatedly admonished to uphold and defend sound doctrine; we are warned many times to keep and defend the pure gospel and our faith from being tainted by false teachers and their old wives tales, and doctrines of demons. Is anybody really listening to this repeated warning? Judging by the millions caught in heretical doctrine, man-made denominations, and cults, apparently not.
The Bible says of the Bereans, in Acts 17:11, that they were more fair-minded, or literally, more 'noble' minded, than the Jews in Thessalonica, and they received the word with readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things (what Paul preached) were so. Wow, if only more of us did that today, then there would be a lot less cults and divisions as a result of false teaching! Because of this noble attitude, the Bible says that many of them (Jews in Berea) believed and so did many of the Greeks, and prominent women, as well as men. The Bereans were mostly Jews, and as such, that means they were familiar with Scripture. Oh yes, they knew the Scriptures even though they mostly followed the traditions of men, or Judaism. That is all that is said of these amazing people, but what a wonderful testimony and example they provided for us all!
I wonder if many Christians realize that the Bereans searched the Old Testament Scriptures (O.T.) and not the New Testament (N.T.) Scriptures, since they were in the process of being written. And they didn't have any other tools to help them understand the written text. It would have been impossible for them to whip out a complete Bible like we have and pour through it's pages. This brings me to a point I would like to make. The O.T. is the foundation of the N.T. And to think that some Christians want to do away with the O.T. entirely - - well, that would be an error of epic proportions! Why, that would be the sin of taking away from God's word, just as serious a crime as adding to it would be. What do these would be biblical editors think Isaiah meant in chapter 28:9-10 when he wrote ". . . line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept. . . ?" Just as in Isaiah's day, there are going to be mockers of God's word, who claim that anyone who dares to teach them sound doctrine is a babbler of nonsense. But ironically, even though the back sliding Israelites were mocking Isaiah in those verses, one must learn the word of God in this way. You can't build anything without some sort of foundation to build upon.
Children learn with consistent repetitive instruction from their parents and all those around them. They are taught the basics of any subject, and when these basics are mastered, then more detailed instructions are given. Any conflicting information will cause confusion and hinder learning. The basics of Christianity are rooted in the O.T. Doing away with the O.T. is justified by the reasoning that the N.T. covenant promises are better and have replaced the O.T. promises and covenant. This is true to a degree, but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that the N.T. is the better or "re-newed" or "new and improved" covenant. Jesus Himself said He didn't come to do away with the OT, but to fulfill it. The N.T. rests on the sure foundation of the O.T. but it is built up with new and better materials. To remove the firm foundation of any building is foolish, unless you want it to topple. Besides, we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
So what does it entail to be like the Bereans? Simply this, pour over the O.T. Scriptures next time you hear your pastor or another preacher who is telling you about a "new" revelation he/she got from the LORD, and see if what they say is so. If it isn't taught in all of Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, then it is a doctrine of demons. What about a "new spin" they are excited to teach about regarding established doctrines like faith, salvation, spiritual and physical wholeness, and prayer? Again, if their teachings don't line up with sound Scriptural doctrine, then it is a false teaching, so don't accept it. If you can, correct the erring teacher in a loving and patient manner, and if they accept the correction, wonderful! If not, then mark them as a wolf in sheep's clothing and warn the other sheep.
Beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
We simply can't afford to be gullible sheep and believe that everyone who claims to be a Christian minister sent from God, actually is one. Especially when Jesus Himself and all of His apostles and prophets warned us there would be wolves hiding among us sheep, ready to devour us. What is a Christian to do regarding these would -be-saints, and how are we to defend ourselves from their wiles? We are told to test them in several ways. One way is to ask them if Jesus came to earth bodily. Gnosticism claims that Jesus was here on earth, but as a disembodied ghost, rather than a flesh and blood man. Another test would be to ask them if Jesus is LORD? (that means: do they believe is He God?). If they say, "No", then they are deceived. If they say "yes", but also say Jesus died spiritually, because His physical death wasn't good enough, then they are false teachers, too. Another question to ask is if King David, when caught in adultery and murder, and the apostle Peter, who publicly denied Jesus three times, each lost their salvation before they repented. The correct answer is, "Yes". If they answer, "No", or do a once saved always saved gospel tap dance around the question, then they are to be re-educated, or avoided as well.
Jesus told us to look at the fruit of teachers, so it is okay to be a fruit inspector, but it's not okay to condemn others and it's not okay to be a hypocrite. When you walk up to a fig tree, you expect to find figs on it, right? Well, if there are grapes, or thorns on it, then that tree is a hypocrite, because its leaves say it is a fig tree, but its fruits are really grapes, or thorns. The "fruit" term Jesus used is a reference to what teachers are presenting to you, as in doctrine, as well as how they live. Word and deed must match if you are to escape the label of "hypocrite." To escape detection by fruit inspectors, false teachers love to quote Matthew 7:1. They hope this will throw the more skiddish sheep off their crooked trail, but that passage really refers to being a condemning hypocrite, rather than using appropriate biblical doctrinal and moral judgments on a teacher and their teachings. That is what the Bereans did with Paul's teachings. "How do we know what is good doctrine from bad?" I'm glad you asked. We need to study to show that we are approved of God, and that entails exercising good exegesis. No, I didn't just take the Lord's name in vain! Exegesis is a fancy word for studying Scripture, and exegesis is not to be confused with eisegesis either. Before I go on, I will define the first term and then move on to the second term later.
Exegesis-n. [Grk.] ek-suh-gee-sis -Critical explanation or interpretation, especially of Scripture.
Critical thinking must be applied when studying Scripture, not in a destructive criticizing sense, or trying to get scripture to justify your sins. The subject of critical thinking is very broad, so for simplicity sake, I will define it as being a way of gathering evidence and putting it under objective scrutiny. And dare I say that common sense is a useful tool in proper interpretation? I do dare - but unfortunately, many of us have come to realize that common sense isn't very "common". Also important to note, there is only one correct "interpretation" of Scripture, or only one correct point of view that we must keep in mind- and that is God's point of view. He dictated Scripture to his holy prophets, who then wrote it down, so we must interpret it from his point of view, not ours - that is what 2 Peter 1:20-21 means. Even so, false prophets claim they teach you things they got as "new revelations" from God's mouth to their ear, and now wish to pass it on to you. When someone claims they have a "new revelation" from God, then it better line up with all of God's word, this is where good exegesis comes into play. But in reality, God has placed every revelation we need in his word, he didn't leave anything out, so there is nothing new under the sun, or in his word.
Now then, certain rules apply to good exegesis and must be followed. I found five such key rules on the Internet. Also, I would caution you to beware of rabbis who give instruction on exegesis. This is because these modern day rabbis are descended from the Pharisees Jesus refuted while on earth, and we all know how explosive those clashes were! Jesus said that they (the Pharisees) taught the commandments of men as if they were Scripture, and made God's word of no effect. He even said that they didn't know or understand the Scriptures, like when they told him the story of the seven-time widow. They wanted to know whose wife she would be after the resurrection, which they didn't believe in anyway. That's not a good endorsement from the Messiah, and they haven't changed their tune in over 2000 years. Knowing this, I completely shy away from rabbis and their approach to Biblical understanding, because they don't have it. Anyway, this is what I found so far. I encourage you to do your own research. 1
Jesus told us to look at the fruit of teachers, so it is okay to be a fruit inspector, but it's not okay to condemn others and it's not okay to be a hypocrite. When you walk up to a fig tree, you expect to find figs on it, right? Well, if there are grapes, or thorns on it, then that tree is a hypocrite, because its leaves say it is a fig tree, but its fruits are really grapes, or thorns. The "fruit" term Jesus used is a reference to what teachers are presenting to you, as in doctrine, as well as how they live. Word and deed must match if you are to escape the label of "hypocrite." To escape detection by fruit inspectors, false teachers love to quote Matthew 7:1. They hope this will throw the more skiddish sheep off their crooked trail, but that passage really refers to being a condemning hypocrite, rather than using appropriate biblical doctrinal and moral judgments on a teacher and their teachings. That is what the Bereans did with Paul's teachings. "How do we know what is good doctrine from bad?" I'm glad you asked. We need to study to show that we are approved of God, and that entails exercising good exegesis. No, I didn't just take the Lord's name in vain! Exegesis is a fancy word for studying Scripture, and exegesis is not to be confused with eisegesis either. Before I go on, I will define the first term and then move on to the second term later.
Exegesis-n. [Grk.] ek-suh-gee-sis -Critical explanation or interpretation, especially of Scripture.
Critical thinking must be applied when studying Scripture, not in a destructive criticizing sense, or trying to get scripture to justify your sins. The subject of critical thinking is very broad, so for simplicity sake, I will define it as being a way of gathering evidence and putting it under objective scrutiny. And dare I say that common sense is a useful tool in proper interpretation? I do dare - but unfortunately, many of us have come to realize that common sense isn't very "common". Also important to note, there is only one correct "interpretation" of Scripture, or only one correct point of view that we must keep in mind- and that is God's point of view. He dictated Scripture to his holy prophets, who then wrote it down, so we must interpret it from his point of view, not ours - that is what 2 Peter 1:20-21 means. Even so, false prophets claim they teach you things they got as "new revelations" from God's mouth to their ear, and now wish to pass it on to you. When someone claims they have a "new revelation" from God, then it better line up with all of God's word, this is where good exegesis comes into play. But in reality, God has placed every revelation we need in his word, he didn't leave anything out, so there is nothing new under the sun, or in his word.
Now then, certain rules apply to good exegesis and must be followed. I found five such key rules on the Internet. Also, I would caution you to beware of rabbis who give instruction on exegesis. This is because these modern day rabbis are descended from the Pharisees Jesus refuted while on earth, and we all know how explosive those clashes were! Jesus said that they (the Pharisees) taught the commandments of men as if they were Scripture, and made God's word of no effect. He even said that they didn't know or understand the Scriptures, like when they told him the story of the seven-time widow. They wanted to know whose wife she would be after the resurrection, which they didn't believe in anyway. That's not a good endorsement from the Messiah, and they haven't changed their tune in over 2000 years. Knowing this, I completely shy away from rabbis and their approach to Biblical understanding, because they don't have it. Anyway, this is what I found so far. I encourage you to do your own research. 1
1. GRAMMATICAL PRINCIPLE
This of course will apply to GRAMMAR! Here I will discuss how over time, language and even word meanings deteriorate. To make matters worse, the majority of us are proven to be lazy grammarians, including yours truly! I can't tell you how many times during this amazing journey of searching for absolute truth, that I have looked heavenward in anguish, wishing that I had paid more attention in my English classes at school! Oh well, let's move on. Languages have rules, such as grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, and usage, that govern how words are put together to form sentences, phrases, and clauses, as well as defining the relationship of their parts to each other. Without knowing proper grammar (etc.), learning or using a language intelligently would be impossible. Incidentally, if you want a good laugh about grammar woes, I recommend Weird Al Yankovic's song, "Word Crimes."
An example of proper grammar in English would be where the adj. is placed before the noun as in: 'The White House'. But in Spanish, the adj. is placed after the noun: 'La Casa Blanca', and when translated literally into English reads: 'The House White' . This doesn't make sense in English even though it is proper grammar in Spanish. Therefore, it is very important to translate information from one language to another by using proper rules of grammar for the language you are translating information into, otherwise the translated work won't make sense. This is no small task, as any interpreter can tell you. Truly the phrase, "it got lost in translation" is no joke either, as there are words and phrases that just don't translate well into another language, and then there is the probability that the interpreter won't give the same interpretation as another interpreter would. That being said, it is the monumental task of the translator to do their best to get the translation as accurate as possible. But it is also important to know grammar rules when reading and writing your own language, to understand what is being said, or to convey your ideas properly. Syntax is the juxtaposition of words (such as modifiers) and phrases. I had to look that up, by the way, I'm no grammatical expert (love you Grammar Girl!), but I try to understand it. Here's an example of a syntax issue: FOR SALE: Mahogany table by a lady with Chippendale legs. Who really has the Chippendale legs, the lady, or the table? Well, according to this sentence, the lady does. I'm sure that's not what they meant. Need I say how important it is for us to understand grammar when we want to rightly divide the word of truth?
For the serious Bible student, as we all should be, the acquisition of a precise English Translation and Greek and Hebrew concordance, and dictionary, is a must. I use the NKJV and an online site that combines Strong's concordance with a dictionary, and there are many of them out there, but my favorite is blueletterbible.org. Commentaries are okay, but it depends on the commentator. The only commentator I will even consider reading is Matthew Henry. Why? Because, he lived between this modern age and the original King James translators, so I consider his work to be a reliable bridge linking the two eras. He was also a godly preacher, was highly educated, gave detailed commentary verse by verse with references linking other scriptures, and his English is still intelligible enough for me to understand even though it proved to be a little hard to understand at first. However, the more I read his commentaries the more I got used to his style. However, it is important to realize that these tools can be, and often are, misused. Concordances for instance, are not exhaustive with their word/Scripture references, and they don't operate like a dictionary. They can, in a round about way, help you understand a word's meaning by how the word is used in the context of the other verses that contain it. But this can lead to improper interpretation if you aren't careful. For instance, people who say that a word is translated in one verse to mean one thing, is mistranslated in another, because it was only used one time. I guess they don't know what synonyms are.
Also, words themselves and their meanings can change over time due to getting similar sounding words confused with each other, as is the case with the Pennsylvania Dutch, who are originally from Germany, not the Netherlands. The German word for 'German' is 'Deutsch' (d-oi-tch), which sounds similar to 'Dutch', which is the language of the Netherlands. And now, because some people didn't make the literal distinction between the two words, an entire populace on the Eastern American seaboard is thought to be the wrong nationality. What about the homophones: there, their, and they're? The misuse of these words can change the meaning of your sentence quickly, or just make you look foolish. Been there (not their) and done that!
An example of proper grammar in English would be where the adj. is placed before the noun as in: 'The White House'. But in Spanish, the adj. is placed after the noun: 'La Casa Blanca', and when translated literally into English reads: 'The House White' . This doesn't make sense in English even though it is proper grammar in Spanish. Therefore, it is very important to translate information from one language to another by using proper rules of grammar for the language you are translating information into, otherwise the translated work won't make sense. This is no small task, as any interpreter can tell you. Truly the phrase, "it got lost in translation" is no joke either, as there are words and phrases that just don't translate well into another language, and then there is the probability that the interpreter won't give the same interpretation as another interpreter would. That being said, it is the monumental task of the translator to do their best to get the translation as accurate as possible. But it is also important to know grammar rules when reading and writing your own language, to understand what is being said, or to convey your ideas properly. Syntax is the juxtaposition of words (such as modifiers) and phrases. I had to look that up, by the way, I'm no grammatical expert (love you Grammar Girl!), but I try to understand it. Here's an example of a syntax issue: FOR SALE: Mahogany table by a lady with Chippendale legs. Who really has the Chippendale legs, the lady, or the table? Well, according to this sentence, the lady does. I'm sure that's not what they meant. Need I say how important it is for us to understand grammar when we want to rightly divide the word of truth?
For the serious Bible student, as we all should be, the acquisition of a precise English Translation and Greek and Hebrew concordance, and dictionary, is a must. I use the NKJV and an online site that combines Strong's concordance with a dictionary, and there are many of them out there, but my favorite is blueletterbible.org. Commentaries are okay, but it depends on the commentator. The only commentator I will even consider reading is Matthew Henry. Why? Because, he lived between this modern age and the original King James translators, so I consider his work to be a reliable bridge linking the two eras. He was also a godly preacher, was highly educated, gave detailed commentary verse by verse with references linking other scriptures, and his English is still intelligible enough for me to understand even though it proved to be a little hard to understand at first. However, the more I read his commentaries the more I got used to his style. However, it is important to realize that these tools can be, and often are, misused. Concordances for instance, are not exhaustive with their word/Scripture references, and they don't operate like a dictionary. They can, in a round about way, help you understand a word's meaning by how the word is used in the context of the other verses that contain it. But this can lead to improper interpretation if you aren't careful. For instance, people who say that a word is translated in one verse to mean one thing, is mistranslated in another, because it was only used one time. I guess they don't know what synonyms are.
Also, words themselves and their meanings can change over time due to getting similar sounding words confused with each other, as is the case with the Pennsylvania Dutch, who are originally from Germany, not the Netherlands. The German word for 'German' is 'Deutsch' (d-oi-tch), which sounds similar to 'Dutch', which is the language of the Netherlands. And now, because some people didn't make the literal distinction between the two words, an entire populace on the Eastern American seaboard is thought to be the wrong nationality. What about the homophones: there, their, and they're? The misuse of these words can change the meaning of your sentence quickly, or just make you look foolish. Been there (not their) and done that!
2. THE LITERAL PRINCIPLE
That is to say: God says what He means, and means what He says. Generally speaking, most of the time, words mean what words mean. In Scripture, since it is also a monumental work of literature, there are many literary devices that are employed in its masterfully written pages. We need to be good exegetes, and learn when the Scripture is to be taken literally, and when it is to be taken figuratively. As was discussed in the Grammatical Principle, we learned that languages are hard to translate into another language, and rules of grammar are often abused and misused, or something got lost in translation. Well, now we are going to deal with the more poetic side of languages, that of literary devices such as metaphors and synonyms, paradox, and hyperbole, etc. etc. etc.
Yes dear reader, confusion can be achieved when words are taken literally when they are meant figuratively and vice versa. Most of us have heard this idiom: "You can't have your cake and eat it too!" This really doesn't make sense to most of the world, but for us, it means you can't have something both ways, you have to decide between two things. Idioms are highly subjective to the culture they come from. For example, the American idiom -"as easy as pie" won't make sense in India. I think they have one that is similar - "as easy as drinking water", and I like that one, because it makes sense in any culture. So, it helps to know when a cultural idiom is used in Scripture, and to know what it means, that is, if it translates well.
Also, when applying the literal principle to exegesis, we must stay true to what was really said and to whom, when it was said, why it was said, and who said it. This is done by using the definitions for the words used when they were written, this is why a good concordance and dictionary are useful. Also, the honest exegete (ek-se-jeet) won't go out of their way to 'spiritualize' or 'allegorize' Scripture without grammatical cause. For example, allegories use metaphors, and other literary devices, which can be tricky to understand. However, when they are present, their interpretation is not far away in the text in which they are found. Also, the Bible uses some 200+ figures of speech, but most of us only master about 5 of them in our lifetime. One you may recognize is personification, in which inanimate objects are given human characteristics by the writer or speaker to get their point across, or to be especially clever, I suppose.
In Isaiah 55:12 we read how the mountains will break out into singing and the trees will clap their hands -- well, do mountains literally have mouths that sing and do trees really have hands to clap? Not that I know of. So, if someone wanted to support the false teaching of animism (things like earth, wind, fire, trees, rocks, animals, etc. have a spirit and soul), then they could use this as an example of it being literally true. In reality, they are taking something figuratively, quite literally, and if believed by the unskilled and untrained, the next logical step would eventually lead to the Biblical justification of idol worship, because they are being told by the false teacher, that the Bible says mountains and trees sing and clap, which means they must be alive, right? Don't laugh, believe it or not, people really do this kind of thing, which Jesus calls: 'the blind leading the blind' and according to Him, they will both wind up in a ditch! It must be understood that unless there is evidence of an allegory, pun, personification or other figure of speech being used in the text (the Greeks call them 'schemes'), then we are to take Scripture word for word, or literally. An example of allegory gone wrong is 'the land of promise' being used for heaven. It is not, I repeat, not to be considered an allegory for heaven, since there is no textual evidence for the two being synonymous, but it is a contextual synonymous reference to the actual land mass of Israel! Another mess of allegory gone wrong with the help of the misuse of a concordance and dictionary, is the "Serpent Seed" false teaching - this is so heinous it deserves a whole page to itself - perhaps in the future. Needless to say, The Literal Principle is very important for proper interpretation.
Yes dear reader, confusion can be achieved when words are taken literally when they are meant figuratively and vice versa. Most of us have heard this idiom: "You can't have your cake and eat it too!" This really doesn't make sense to most of the world, but for us, it means you can't have something both ways, you have to decide between two things. Idioms are highly subjective to the culture they come from. For example, the American idiom -"as easy as pie" won't make sense in India. I think they have one that is similar - "as easy as drinking water", and I like that one, because it makes sense in any culture. So, it helps to know when a cultural idiom is used in Scripture, and to know what it means, that is, if it translates well.
Also, when applying the literal principle to exegesis, we must stay true to what was really said and to whom, when it was said, why it was said, and who said it. This is done by using the definitions for the words used when they were written, this is why a good concordance and dictionary are useful. Also, the honest exegete (ek-se-jeet) won't go out of their way to 'spiritualize' or 'allegorize' Scripture without grammatical cause. For example, allegories use metaphors, and other literary devices, which can be tricky to understand. However, when they are present, their interpretation is not far away in the text in which they are found. Also, the Bible uses some 200+ figures of speech, but most of us only master about 5 of them in our lifetime. One you may recognize is personification, in which inanimate objects are given human characteristics by the writer or speaker to get their point across, or to be especially clever, I suppose.
In Isaiah 55:12 we read how the mountains will break out into singing and the trees will clap their hands -- well, do mountains literally have mouths that sing and do trees really have hands to clap? Not that I know of. So, if someone wanted to support the false teaching of animism (things like earth, wind, fire, trees, rocks, animals, etc. have a spirit and soul), then they could use this as an example of it being literally true. In reality, they are taking something figuratively, quite literally, and if believed by the unskilled and untrained, the next logical step would eventually lead to the Biblical justification of idol worship, because they are being told by the false teacher, that the Bible says mountains and trees sing and clap, which means they must be alive, right? Don't laugh, believe it or not, people really do this kind of thing, which Jesus calls: 'the blind leading the blind' and according to Him, they will both wind up in a ditch! It must be understood that unless there is evidence of an allegory, pun, personification or other figure of speech being used in the text (the Greeks call them 'schemes'), then we are to take Scripture word for word, or literally. An example of allegory gone wrong is 'the land of promise' being used for heaven. It is not, I repeat, not to be considered an allegory for heaven, since there is no textual evidence for the two being synonymous, but it is a contextual synonymous reference to the actual land mass of Israel! Another mess of allegory gone wrong with the help of the misuse of a concordance and dictionary, is the "Serpent Seed" false teaching - this is so heinous it deserves a whole page to itself - perhaps in the future. Needless to say, The Literal Principle is very important for proper interpretation.
3. HISTORICAL PRINCIPLE
When reading any passage in Scripture, historical context is important to understand what is being said and ultimately taught. The diligent exegete, or Bible student, will take political, cultural, and social practices of the time that the passages were written, into account when interpreting their meaning, but not place any modern ideas, or practices where they don't belong. A good exegete will not use the lame excuses of historical time frames, or cultural practices, to nullify God's word in their own time and culture, either. Why? Because God's word is timeless and applies to every culture, and every time period in human history and its future. That means when Paul wrote that women were to be submissive to their husbands and that women were not to teach or have authority over men, then that applies to even this "modern" western day and age, as well as when Paul penned God's inspired word.
It is a great help to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek customs and history using concordances, dictionaries, commentaries and historically accurate information from other sources. But once gain, these things are to be used properly and should not replace God's inspired word, or be used to distort its proper interpretation. Does this mean you have to become a convert to Judaism, become a Hebrew scholar, Greek philosopher, English major, or archaeologist? No. I myself recently learned a Hebrew custom regarding the girl who carefully searched for her lost coin in Luke 15. She had good reason to rejoice when it was finally found, since it was part of her bridal dowry and went into her wedding tiara. If I remember right, I think the implication was that of her 'purity' being intact, as well as its obvious monetary value. My daddy told me this information regarding this cultural custom, which he learned from a Messianic Jewish rabbi. Learning a little tidbit of ancient cultural information will now make a passage come alive and make you say, "Ohhhhh, that's why! Now I get it!"
It is a great help to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek customs and history using concordances, dictionaries, commentaries and historically accurate information from other sources. But once gain, these things are to be used properly and should not replace God's inspired word, or be used to distort its proper interpretation. Does this mean you have to become a convert to Judaism, become a Hebrew scholar, Greek philosopher, English major, or archaeologist? No. I myself recently learned a Hebrew custom regarding the girl who carefully searched for her lost coin in Luke 15. She had good reason to rejoice when it was finally found, since it was part of her bridal dowry and went into her wedding tiara. If I remember right, I think the implication was that of her 'purity' being intact, as well as its obvious monetary value. My daddy told me this information regarding this cultural custom, which he learned from a Messianic Jewish rabbi. Learning a little tidbit of ancient cultural information will now make a passage come alive and make you say, "Ohhhhh, that's why! Now I get it!"
4. THE SYNTHESIS OF SCRIPTURE
More simply put, Scripture interprets itself. We should not read a verse in the KJV, NKJV, Geneva Bible, or any other precise translation, and then take the modern paraphrase of that verse from, say, the New Age book "The Message" (I hesitate to even call that travesty a Bible) and then use a modern dictionary to define the words in that verse, and call that good exegesis. Exhibit A: Mr. Jerry Savelle, a proven false teacher many times over, wrote several books using this diabolical process. I listened to one of his teachings at my former Life Group (women's Bible study that is really a coven unbeknownst to them), a teaching on John Chapter 17, which was my mom's favorite passage in the whole Bible! In this chapter Jesus is praying for His disciples, both the ones that followed Him then, and the ones that follow Him now. Mr. Savelle picked out a particular passage where Jesus says that we are to be in the world, but we are not to be of it. Some how from these words he got that Christians are not limited to live in a recession like the world does, but instead, we can be rich and prosperous. And all the people said, "Huh?"
You see, he started with a precise English Translation, the NKJV, and then used "The Message", for the same verse where he picked out his target word (boundaries) from its paraphrased passage, and then looked it up in a modern dictionary and voila' ! - After his gymnastic use of words and eisegesis, according to Jerry, Jesus told him, to tell us, what He actually meant was - that we don't have to live in this world's financial boundaries anymore! I was flabbergasted! I knew this was wrong, but I didn't have any ammo against his acrobatic semantics that seemed legitimate at the time. It wasn't until later, after doing research, that I acquired the truth to counter the lie. You see, by applying the synthesis of Scripture principle, 1 John 2:15-16 clearly defines 'being of the world' as: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, with absolutely no mention of "boundaries" or "recessions". Mr. Savelle receives a 0.0 in academic biblical exegesis, but a 10.0 in false teaching from the United States judge. As far as his false and undefined claim that we don't have to live by this world's boundaries like God, he leaves it up to the listener to decide what he means by that statement. First of all we are not God, and according to Scripture, God not only sets boundaries, but He also rules by them. There are certain things He just won't and can't do, like lie or make us go against our own will, just to name a few. And no matter what happens, He keeps His part of any bargain, which have conditions, or boundaries.
Another example from Mr. Savelle, which perhaps will convince even the most ardent Word of Faith minion of his gross errors, and his well earned status as a false teacher, is that Mr. Savelle claims that not only did God tell him, that according to Isaiah 45:11, he (Jerry Savelle) could command God to do his bidding, but he should tell his (Jerry's, not God's) followers to do the same. Again, "Huh?" Oh sure, he feigned fearful timidity of going against the accepted righteous roadblocks of godly common sense and sound doctrine when claiming God "said" - we, the created, can order around the creator, but that's just it, he's only acting! This is the Hegelian dialectic all shysters set up, one of thesis vs. anti-thesis = synthesis. By nature most of us don't like conflict so we seek compromise. Conflict is achieved when you have two completely opposite views such as creation and evolution go head to head. The conflict Mr Savelle sets up is this:
God tells his creation what to do. vs. We want to call the shots.
His compromise, or syncratic synthesis is Isaiah 45:11 taken out of context, way out of context. Dear reader, the enemy of our souls knows our weaknesses, and as any good adversary would do, he exploits them. Compromise is of the Devil, dear reader!
Clearly, Jerry didn't practice the synthesis of scripture, which means he didn't examine that passage in relation to its immediate surrounding verses, and then the wider context of the book in which it was found in, and then in the widest context of all, the entire Bible. This is the proper context regarding that verse: we (the created) are subject to God (the creator) period! If Mr. Savelle had done the work of a good exegete, then he would have realized that the "voice" that told him this lie, was not from God. The correct context of that verse is God telling the disobedient and idolatrous Israelite children, that He created the entire universe and who exactly did they think they were in commanding His arm? Or to put in our vernacular, "Who do you think you are child, telling me what to do? I brought you in this world and I can take you out!" The entire book of Isaiah deals with the rebellion of Israel and Judah against God and His commandments, which would result in their exile and death. And most of the OT deals with the same thing, human beings are all potential or current idol worshipers deserving of death. But we are not without hope, God always gives hope of salvation with his correction. In this case, God would use King Cyrus to restore them to their land, after they suffered in captivity for their rebellion against him.
Please name me one scripture in the entire Bible, except Joshua 10:12-14, where God says His children can tell Him what to do, as opposed to asking him to do something for them? These two passages are what we would call: "the exception that proves the rule", and verse 14 even says so. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel." So, Jerry Savelle has clearly shown he is one of those "untaught, and unstable" people the Apostle Peter spoke of in 2 Peter 3:16.
You see, he started with a precise English Translation, the NKJV, and then used "The Message", for the same verse where he picked out his target word (boundaries) from its paraphrased passage, and then looked it up in a modern dictionary and voila' ! - After his gymnastic use of words and eisegesis, according to Jerry, Jesus told him, to tell us, what He actually meant was - that we don't have to live in this world's financial boundaries anymore! I was flabbergasted! I knew this was wrong, but I didn't have any ammo against his acrobatic semantics that seemed legitimate at the time. It wasn't until later, after doing research, that I acquired the truth to counter the lie. You see, by applying the synthesis of Scripture principle, 1 John 2:15-16 clearly defines 'being of the world' as: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, with absolutely no mention of "boundaries" or "recessions". Mr. Savelle receives a 0.0 in academic biblical exegesis, but a 10.0 in false teaching from the United States judge. As far as his false and undefined claim that we don't have to live by this world's boundaries like God, he leaves it up to the listener to decide what he means by that statement. First of all we are not God, and according to Scripture, God not only sets boundaries, but He also rules by them. There are certain things He just won't and can't do, like lie or make us go against our own will, just to name a few. And no matter what happens, He keeps His part of any bargain, which have conditions, or boundaries.
Another example from Mr. Savelle, which perhaps will convince even the most ardent Word of Faith minion of his gross errors, and his well earned status as a false teacher, is that Mr. Savelle claims that not only did God tell him, that according to Isaiah 45:11, he (Jerry Savelle) could command God to do his bidding, but he should tell his (Jerry's, not God's) followers to do the same. Again, "Huh?" Oh sure, he feigned fearful timidity of going against the accepted righteous roadblocks of godly common sense and sound doctrine when claiming God "said" - we, the created, can order around the creator, but that's just it, he's only acting! This is the Hegelian dialectic all shysters set up, one of thesis vs. anti-thesis = synthesis. By nature most of us don't like conflict so we seek compromise. Conflict is achieved when you have two completely opposite views such as creation and evolution go head to head. The conflict Mr Savelle sets up is this:
God tells his creation what to do. vs. We want to call the shots.
His compromise, or syncratic synthesis is Isaiah 45:11 taken out of context, way out of context. Dear reader, the enemy of our souls knows our weaknesses, and as any good adversary would do, he exploits them. Compromise is of the Devil, dear reader!
Clearly, Jerry didn't practice the synthesis of scripture, which means he didn't examine that passage in relation to its immediate surrounding verses, and then the wider context of the book in which it was found in, and then in the widest context of all, the entire Bible. This is the proper context regarding that verse: we (the created) are subject to God (the creator) period! If Mr. Savelle had done the work of a good exegete, then he would have realized that the "voice" that told him this lie, was not from God. The correct context of that verse is God telling the disobedient and idolatrous Israelite children, that He created the entire universe and who exactly did they think they were in commanding His arm? Or to put in our vernacular, "Who do you think you are child, telling me what to do? I brought you in this world and I can take you out!" The entire book of Isaiah deals with the rebellion of Israel and Judah against God and His commandments, which would result in their exile and death. And most of the OT deals with the same thing, human beings are all potential or current idol worshipers deserving of death. But we are not without hope, God always gives hope of salvation with his correction. In this case, God would use King Cyrus to restore them to their land, after they suffered in captivity for their rebellion against him.
Please name me one scripture in the entire Bible, except Joshua 10:12-14, where God says His children can tell Him what to do, as opposed to asking him to do something for them? These two passages are what we would call: "the exception that proves the rule", and verse 14 even says so. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel." So, Jerry Savelle has clearly shown he is one of those "untaught, and unstable" people the Apostle Peter spoke of in 2 Peter 3:16.
5. THE PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE
Once we have properly interpreted the passages we have read through, by using good exegesis, we now have the responsibility, as good children of our Heavenly Father, to actually do what was written down for us, this is how we grow up spiritually in the faith and in the knowledge of God. Deut. 30:11-1; Matt. 7:21-28; Luke 6:46-49; Rom. 2:13; and James 1:22-25, all of these Scriptures admonish us to do what they tell us to do. Children grow up mentally, and emotionally, when they obey their parents, and do what they have been taught. We have all scene the proverbial 52 year old child who never grew up - yuck! The word of God is supposed to change us, we are not supposed to change it, or try to make it say what we want it to say based on our own half-baked ideas, or selfish desires. As the word of God says: "cast down vain imaginings that exalt themselves above the knowledge of Christ", and "the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?", and "there is a way that seems right unto a man but leads to death! " Do you get the picture? What Jerry Savelle and many like him use is eisegesis not exegesis! Which brings me to its definition, finally.
Eisegesis - n. [Grk] (I-suh-jee-sis)The practice where the interpreter, or Bible student uses single verses, or parts of Scripture grouped by topic, to support their own ideas, or imaginings.
An example of the method of eisegesis they employ is: Proverbs 20:18 which many claim is proof of the biblical teaching of positive and negative confession, or you will have good or bad things come upon you based on what you say. This is a tricky one, as that is actually half true, which means that it is also half wrong. Scripture tells us that no lie is of the truth. So, a half-truth is really a whole lie, not just because of the mixed information, but because of the intent behind the half-truth, which is to lead you astray, or deceive you. By using proper exegesis, it is rightly interpreted that this verse is really saying that by talking too much, people have died for saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and to the wrong person. However, by saying the right thing at the right time, to the right person, that brings life. But that doesn't stop the Word of Faith teachers from using it to tell you it is okay to participate in the New Age teaching of The Law of Attraction. They acknowledge New Agers use the law of attraction, but then tell you that it only works for them on a limited scale. They claim that when a believer uses it, then the power is magnified - ergo "You can have what you say good, or bad!" Oh yeah, they are also careful to say that negative words are way more powerful than positive words. Whew! I'm so glad they warned us that evil is more powerful than good, aren't you? Just because something works, doesn't mean God wants us to use it. And quite honestly, this doesn't work in the way they say it does.
To further disarm any objection to their half baked-truth, they carefully choose other "supporting" scriptures that don't even apply contextually in an attempt to validate their false teaching, and do you know what? IT WORKS! Their deception I mean, not their laws of positive and negative confession, and attraction. I ought to know- they successfully snowed me for 20+ years! It took losing my mom to breast cancer to wake me up and get me to repent of my spiritual blindness, so please, if you are a Word of Faith minion, don't wait that long, I beg you.
I don't deny the concept that "birds of a feather flock together", obviously that's true, because these wolves run in packs! What I do deny is that Scripture teaches The Law of Attraction, and The Law of Positive and Negative Confession as an acceptable biblical basis for getting monetary wealth and physical healing and, as being sanctioned by God, which they are not. Again, just because something works, doesn't mean we are to use it. By stealing, you can acquire a lot of goods, but we aren't supposed to steal, it is wrong.
Eisegesis is an improper way of studying Scripture, and leads a person down the slippery slope to the twisted road of false conclusions, and causes one to stray off the narrow path of righteousness. This false method is used by a variety of people. It is usually the lazy mans' way to interpret Scripture since exegesis takes careful study, and careful study is time consuming and requires a lot of effort, thought, and objectivity. Eisegesis is also used by those who are untaught and unskilled in the way of righteousness. Eisegesis is used by a spoiled child who wants their way, or by a so-called"legalistic" [really a hypocritical] person looking for loopholes in the law in which to exploit; this is what got the Pharisees in trouble with Jesus. But mostly notably, it is used by false prophets and teachers; ravenous wolves disguised as sheep, for no other reason than to fleece the Lord's sheep, or even by genuinely clueless pastors who were taught this method in their "Bible" school. You can avoid these dangers by using the 5 principles of proper exegesis listed above, dear reader. And then you will be less likely to misinterpret Scripture, and you will be then changed by it, as well as avoid being deceived by false teachers. In short, you will be like the Bereans! So, be warned little sheep, and beware. . . for there are hungry fleece clad wolves out there! [Acts 20: 29-31]
Eisegesis - n. [Grk] (I-suh-jee-sis)The practice where the interpreter, or Bible student uses single verses, or parts of Scripture grouped by topic, to support their own ideas, or imaginings.
An example of the method of eisegesis they employ is: Proverbs 20:18 which many claim is proof of the biblical teaching of positive and negative confession, or you will have good or bad things come upon you based on what you say. This is a tricky one, as that is actually half true, which means that it is also half wrong. Scripture tells us that no lie is of the truth. So, a half-truth is really a whole lie, not just because of the mixed information, but because of the intent behind the half-truth, which is to lead you astray, or deceive you. By using proper exegesis, it is rightly interpreted that this verse is really saying that by talking too much, people have died for saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and to the wrong person. However, by saying the right thing at the right time, to the right person, that brings life. But that doesn't stop the Word of Faith teachers from using it to tell you it is okay to participate in the New Age teaching of The Law of Attraction. They acknowledge New Agers use the law of attraction, but then tell you that it only works for them on a limited scale. They claim that when a believer uses it, then the power is magnified - ergo "You can have what you say good, or bad!" Oh yeah, they are also careful to say that negative words are way more powerful than positive words. Whew! I'm so glad they warned us that evil is more powerful than good, aren't you? Just because something works, doesn't mean God wants us to use it. And quite honestly, this doesn't work in the way they say it does.
To further disarm any objection to their half baked-truth, they carefully choose other "supporting" scriptures that don't even apply contextually in an attempt to validate their false teaching, and do you know what? IT WORKS! Their deception I mean, not their laws of positive and negative confession, and attraction. I ought to know- they successfully snowed me for 20+ years! It took losing my mom to breast cancer to wake me up and get me to repent of my spiritual blindness, so please, if you are a Word of Faith minion, don't wait that long, I beg you.
I don't deny the concept that "birds of a feather flock together", obviously that's true, because these wolves run in packs! What I do deny is that Scripture teaches The Law of Attraction, and The Law of Positive and Negative Confession as an acceptable biblical basis for getting monetary wealth and physical healing and, as being sanctioned by God, which they are not. Again, just because something works, doesn't mean we are to use it. By stealing, you can acquire a lot of goods, but we aren't supposed to steal, it is wrong.
Eisegesis is an improper way of studying Scripture, and leads a person down the slippery slope to the twisted road of false conclusions, and causes one to stray off the narrow path of righteousness. This false method is used by a variety of people. It is usually the lazy mans' way to interpret Scripture since exegesis takes careful study, and careful study is time consuming and requires a lot of effort, thought, and objectivity. Eisegesis is also used by those who are untaught and unskilled in the way of righteousness. Eisegesis is used by a spoiled child who wants their way, or by a so-called"legalistic" [really a hypocritical] person looking for loopholes in the law in which to exploit; this is what got the Pharisees in trouble with Jesus. But mostly notably, it is used by false prophets and teachers; ravenous wolves disguised as sheep, for no other reason than to fleece the Lord's sheep, or even by genuinely clueless pastors who were taught this method in their "Bible" school. You can avoid these dangers by using the 5 principles of proper exegesis listed above, dear reader. And then you will be less likely to misinterpret Scripture, and you will be then changed by it, as well as avoid being deceived by false teachers. In short, you will be like the Bereans! So, be warned little sheep, and beware. . . for there are hungry fleece clad wolves out there! [Acts 20: 29-31]
1. Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy B. Zuck.
Comments? Click the button and it will take you to my guest book, but don't forget to tell me what article you are commenting on. Thanks!
A special thanks goes to my page editor and resident grammarian, my son, Timothy, who had a great deal of fun correcting me! To the Grammar police, if there are still some errors, cut Tim some slack, he's still learning, and know that this article would have been much worse without his help!