In our eagerness to understand the Bible, on occasion, Christians inadvertently reach premature conclusions that misapply God’s intended meanings. Correct hermeneutical and exegetical procedures are essential if we are to extract from the biblical text precisely what God intended to communicate. Correct interpretative procedures include, first, examining the statement in the Bible under consideration (i.e., as to word meanings and syntax). Second, the immediate context must be evaluated (i.e., the material immediately before and immediately after the specific statement). Third, the remote context must be examined [i.e., all other data located in: (a) the rest of the book in which the specific statement occurs; and (b) the rest of the Bible, that might be relevant to a proper interpretation of the specific statement itself]. Once one has gathered all of this evidentiary information, one then must “fit it all together accurately” —i.e., reason correctly to arrive at only warranted conclusions (Warren, 1975, pp. 21,44,59). Applying proper exegetical controls would aid in avoiding denominational error, and likewise would protect Christians from promoting erroneous ideas. For example, English dictionaries typically have defined “baptism” to include pouring or sprinkling water on a person, in addition to immersing the individual in water. However, an examination of the term in its original cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts demonstrates that baptism meant immersion — not sprinkling or pouring. Contextual details within Scripture, like “buried” in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12, “much water” in John 3:23, and “both…went down into the water” in Acts 8:38, enable the objective interpreter to discover the biblical meaning of the word. Even though in current English vernacular the term has been broadened in its meaning to include sprinkling water on infants, the New Testament writers did not so use the term.
Another example of a failure to assess exegetical detail accurately is found in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22:
Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? (NKJV, emp.added).
A number of individuals and/or entire congregations have cited this passage in defense of their opposition to “eating in the church building.” However, further analysis of the text reveals that Paul could not have been forbidding the consumption of food in the church building, since it cannot be proven that the Corinthians even had a church building! Both textual and historical considerations combine to show that first-century Christians met in private homes (e.g., Romans 16:5,15; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2). History records that Christians did not build meeting facilities until centuries later, when governmental persecution and societal opposition waned. The passage is discussing the Corinthian abuse of the communion — not the abuse of church property. Paul was not concerned with where they were meeting but with how they were partaking. This same mentality has led to the further notion that the church facilities some how are sacred, and may not be used for “secular” purposes — an idea that closely resembles the denominational concept of the “sanctuary.”
Still another instance of misapplication of Scripture is found in Romans 1:16, where Paul wrote: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (NKJV). On occasion, preachers note that the word translated “power” in this verse is from the Greek term dunamis, from which we get the English word “dynamite.” They then draw the conclusion that the Gospel is God’s dynamite that blasts sin from the sinner’s life. However, using the same logic with the occurrence of the same term in its various forms in other passages would show this application to be erroneous (e.g., Matthew 26:64 —“power”; Mark 6:5 — “mighty work”; Acts 2:22 — “mighty works”; Romans 8:38 — “powers”; 1 Peter 3:22 — “powers.” The “dynamite” application will not work in these verses.
The root flaw with this curious application of biblical terminology lies in the superimposition of a subsequent application of a Greek term back onto the original import of the term. Alfred Nobel is credited with the invention in 1867 of a method by which nitroglycerin could be packaged for safer handling. Since his invention incorporated an extremely powerful substance, he named it “dynamite” after the Greek word for “power,” “might,” or “force.” Retroactively superimposing Nobel’s invention of an explosive back onto the biblical text is a misrepresentation of the original authorial intent of the Holy Spirit. It is akin to taking the modern laundry detergent Dynamo® and claiming that the Gospel is “God’s laundry detergent to cleanse sin from people’s lives.” If Nobel had invented a new form of whiskey and named it “dynawhisk” because of its powerful effect on the mind and body, would we be correct in superimposing this notion back onto Romans 1:16 by referring to the Gospel as “God’s intoxicant to drown sin out of the mind”? To ask is to answer.
References
Warren, Thomas B. (1975), When Is An “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
-----
Article Reprint Distributed by Apologetics Press, Inc. 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, AL 36117-2752 (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/applying.pdf
This item originally appeared in Apologetics Press/Reason & Revelation
