Evangelical Christians pride themselves in believing the Bible and in preaching the Gospel.

However, this self-assessment does not completely stand up to scrutiny.

I have heard many an evangelical preacher who is rather niggardly with the Gospel and sometimes I wonder if they know how to preach it.

As for their biblical teaching, I have heard both wrong exegesis and plain error.

As there is no adequate forum for dealing with the public teaching of error, I feel the necessity laid upon me as a preacher 2Tim 2:2-4, to whom Christ has committed the Gospel 1Th 2:4, to draw attention to these.

I correct these mistakes in my Bible commentary, but as people do not yet have access to this, there may be scope and benefit in at least drawing attention to matters that deserve closer attention.

In former years, such matters were handled in a litigious and legalistic manner, rather than in the Christian manner taught by the apostle Paul, which is to commend one’s teaching to every man’s conscience by the correct exegesis of Scripture 2Cor 4:2, rather than by the dogmatic appeal to authorities.

This blogpost is a mere sample of erroneous teaching that I have heard in my own local town of about 47,000 inhabitants, with more than a dozen evangelical churches. I mention this because I go “round the walls of Jerusalem” Ps 48:12-13 and periodically visit evangelical and non-evangelical churches, as well as non-Christian groups in Inverness, even the local Humanist Association meetings and Jehovah’s Witnesses, so that I may be acquainted with what is being said. I know of only three Christians in my home town who occasionally visit other local churches and organisations. If there are more, I would expect to have met them by now.

Some years ago I emailed some prominent evangelical ministers in the city to ask what they thought “the Spirit was saying to the churches” Rev 2:7,17 of Inverness, but none of them would say so. Are they silent dogs that will not or cannot bark Isa 56:10 or do they simply not know? As a minister called by Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel, I feel an obligation to speak when asked to.

I have intended making such a blogpost for a very long time but I am provoked to begin this list because of several notable examples.

Overlooking denominational peculiarities or differences between presbyterians, baptists, dispensationalists and charismatics, which are a necessary outcome of liberty of conscience, the following are examples of biblical errors that I have heard evangelicals use in my home town.

Deutero-Isaiah is a doctrine arising from biblical criticism, which teaches  that there were two Isaiahs, some think more, who wrote the biblical book called Isaiah.  Whatever biblical critics may think of this academic opinion, it is not an evangelical opinion, which this blogpost is addressing.  One may detect this error by preachers referring to the latter chapters of the book of Isaiah being written after the return of the Children of Israel from the Babylonian activity.  Yes, I heard this recently in an evangelical church. Rather, the prophetic mention of the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes is mentioned as early as Isa 13:17-19 and so it is not remarkable to find references later in the prophecy of Isaiah.

I am further provoked to begin this blogpost by congregations not noticing errors as they occur, or at least not being concerned enough about them to even comment on them. A godly eldership should correct errors coming from the pulpit, so when this does not happen it indicates that they are not up to the task.

The only good thing about errors being preached from pulpits is that most people don’t even notice them or they are not influenced by them, and few people take notes. However, many sermons are now being recorded on the internet for a global audience to be misled. This necessitates correction, as and when one can.

Another concerning point is that many surveys suggest that the main source of religious opinion is what people hear from the pulpit.  Only a minority of people read the Bible for themselves, and far less study it.  This being so, doctrinal error is imbibed from pulpit teaching.  In the absence of Christian teaching, most of the population are imbibing their opinions from the mass media and now social media, which are modern pulpits.

Careful and exact teaching

Public teaching should be exact and especially preaching.  It is inappropriate that when a preacher is challenged about one of his remarks that he should reply that it had just come to him and that it was an off-the-cuff remark.  If this is so, he should qualify his remark so that his hearers are not misled by the inaccuracy of the comment. A greater error is the refusal to correct loose language in the future but simply to repeat it. This is a serious reflection upon the spirit of the preacher, his attitude to his public teaching and his attitude towards his hearers. One should be wary of such preachers until they demonstrate that they are preaching as in the presence of God and as accountable to Him for every idle word spoken, especially as spoken in the name of God.

There is no excuse for websites to be inaccurate because they can be easily corrected.  People enthusiastically begin a website but many do not maintain it so that it is out of date.  The persistence of mistakes simply highlights that the producer does not read their own website. 

A mistake in published writing cannot be so easily corrected and a spoken error is almost impossible to correct because of the inability to determine all the people who heard it.

Preachers should not make off-the-cuff or unprepared remarks that they have not thoroughly studied beforehand.  The excuse that they did not mean what they said or that it was off the cuff are inadequate.  It is an insult to their hearers to whom they are effectively saying, Go and research it for yourself; let me waste your collective time in researching what I thought was a waste of my time to determine accurately before using it.  There are, of course, some subjects that a preacher does want his hearers to research but off-the-cuff remarks should be clearly marked as such.

Criticism

The next difficulty I face in producing a blogpost such as this is that a critic of public preaching is likely to be viewed as a trouble-maker.  Film critics, football pundits, political commentators all have their place in public affairs, but criticizing sermons is considered by some people to be impolite, like speaking about religion, sex or politics in polite company.  It is “off limits”.  Bible students know that Jesus and the Holy Spirit did not think so.  Jesus frequently criticised the false teaching of the scribes, the superstitious practices of the Pharisees and the worldly theology of the Sadducees.  The Holy Spirit commended those who checked out even the apostle Paul Act 17:11.

Criticism of critics

Leaving aside the usual methods of resisting criticism, such as 1. the well-known put-down directed at critics, that one should offer “positive rather than negative criticism”, which begs the question whether it is negative criticism and 2. “it’s not what you say but the way you say it” is a regular put-down. These typical avoidance responses raise the question why people are so coy about criticism of preachers in general and of their own preacher(s) in particular.  Are such defensive attitudes indicative not only of the natural desire to defend one’s own corner but far worse of an indifference to biblical truth?

The 16th-century European Reformation would never have occurred with such sycophantic deference to public preachers.  Are modern evangelicals able to debate?

I have often mentioned the importance of congregational debate to improve biblical understanding among Christian congregations. 

Further, what is the forum for improving congregational leadership and preaching?  There are pulpit teachers who demonstrate their worth as Christ-sent ministers but there are enough Christian gifts and graces in most congregations to improve even preachers for the benefit of all congregations.

Top sportsman and team sports have multiple coaches to develop their training although they are already experts in their field.  Are preachers beyond development, far less correction? Who will do so, and what and where is the forum to do so?

Biblical standards

The Lord tells us plainly in the Bible what standard He expects from preachers.  In Malachi 1:6-14 the Lord uses earthly governers to contrast the effort and care people put into worldly activity compared to what effort religious officials in Israel put into the worship of God. 

God is not pleased Mal 1:10 with dishonourable worship Mal 1:6, which does not maintain divine standards in worship Mal 1:7-9. The Lord noted that the heathen put more honour and diligence into their false worship Mal 1:11 than the children of Israel put into His worship Mal 1:12. The result was God’s curse Mal 1:14 upon their worship and His refusal to accept it Mal 1:13.

In Mal 2:2,7 the Lord specifically referenced the teachers in Israel.  How does this compare to your preachers? It is my experience that some evangelical preachers are beyond correction even when a text of Scripture is presented to them. If they think it impacts upon themselves or their teaching, their lack of interest in Scripture is very telling.

These recent blogposts might explain the importance of having accurate preaching.

1. Jesus’ view of pick and mix Christians.
2. Jesus’ view of ecclesiastical leaders.
3. The definition of a Christian.
4. The role of biblical exegesis in resolving long-standing differences of opinion among evangelicals and the usefulness of biblical exegesis in general.

After such a lengthy introduction by way of context, let me simply list some mistakes in exegesis and other matters that I have heard from professed evangelical preachers.

Exegetical mistakes are possibly be the most distressing errors because they twist the true meaning Scripture, with the damaging effect upon the conscience as a result.  In 2000 a popular journalist wrote to me to commiserate with my listening to the preaching of others.  He wrote that I must find it distressing to witness others murdering texts of Scripture.  He was correct.  There are so many examples that it is evident that few preachers engage in biblical exegesis but rely upon commentaries or, even worse, the opinion of others, repeated without personal research.  This single blogpost cannot correct these errors but I plan simply to list texts and topics that are commonly taught wrongly to alert people to the issues, which they can research for themselves.

I have done something similar in my blogpost on academic errors which is a list of wrong translations of biblical texts. That blogpost continues to grow, as this one is expected to do, but that one is now so long that probably very few people have the interest or patience to read it all.  However, its length is simply to demonstrate the basic point that teams of academic translators of the Bible simply copy each other rather than do their own exegesis of Scripture in order to arrive at an accurate English translation of the Bible.

Over the years I have been asked my opinion on various texts of Scripture, but not often. I wonder what percentage of Christians really study Scripture for its meaning. I have also noticed that no matter how many times I may suggest a correction, that I rarely hear any correction far less improvement.

This being so, I will begin a list here of the texts and topics that many evangelical preachers need to study for themselves because it appears that many of them will not take verbal correction but they must find it written in some authoritative book.  So let them consult their various authorities, whose role is to open up the teaching of Scripture, until they find the real meaning of these biblical concepts and texts of Scripture that are so frequently misunderstood.

Having begun a series on biblical exegesis on 1/1/2022 I decided on 18/6/2023 to begin my series on Exegetical Errors, which I have been provoked to prepare and publish now in this interim form.  I have previously referred to the usefulness and importance of biblical exegesis to resolve differences between the godly but this eclectic list or series of exegetical mistakes is too long and difficult for one blogpost to correct. This being so I will simply list them here and link to individual blogposts as I find time.

This is a preliminary list to which I will add when I find time and opportunity.

The first list is arranged alphabetically by topic, followed by a list of biblical texts, in no particular order of importance, but simply as they come to my attention for this blogpost. This being so, I will add to it as opportunity presents itself, which will probably grow as long as my blogpost on academic exegesis, but this current one will possibly be more accessible, more useful and easier to consult.

Alphabetical topical index

Angel of the Lord – the angel of the Lord is interpreted in some passages by many evangelicals as a theophany or Christophany of the Son of God. It is stated without proof, for there is no proof. This common but mistaken idea arises from 1. copying others and 2. failing to exegete the relevant biblical passages – Ps 35:5-6, Zec 1:12, Mat 28:2 and Rev 1:1 are random passages for exegetes to begin to correct their mistake. How does an angel appear as a Christophany of the Son of God after He has become incarnate as the Lord Jesus Christ? Let those who continue to repeat this mistaken opinion do some biblical exegesis and feed their soul in the process. Those angels that people call Christophanies, or worse theophanies Jn 1:18, 1Jn 4:12 and Jn 14:7,9, are glorious manifestations of Michael the archangel Rev 10:1,6 and Rev 12:7 as the personal assistant or ambassador of the Son of God and, through Him, of the Godhead as a whole Heb 1:3, to whom, in such a capacity, special homage is paid.

Arminianism – here is a gross example of Arminian eisegesis of Scripture.

The Benediction – although evangelicals believe that one should not add to nor take away from the Word of God Rev 22:18-19, yet many evangelical preachers, in pronouncing the Benediction, alter these biblical passages 2Cor 13:14 and Num 6:24-26 with rhetorical flourishes as if the Word of God is too bland and needs their improvement. The same is true of Doxologies added to the Psalms.

The Book of Life – I have heard and can document numerous Calvinistic preachers and authors who tell us that the Book of Life Rev 22:19 is the book of God’s election, but these Calvinists do not explain how people can be removed from this Book of God’s supposed election. It shows how little biblical exegesis is done and that Calvinistic theology has been imposed on this biblical concept, being an example of eisegesis. This can be demonstrated in many ways, but what do Calvinistic psalm-singers make of Ps 69:28 when they sing it? Are they singing with the understanding?  How can a Calvinist believe that God removes people from the Book of Life if they interpret it as God’s elect?  Do they pray for it as the godly Psalmist did?  Can they intelligently sing what David has penned? Evidently the Book of Life is not God’s book of election, but Calvinistic preachers continue to assert it to the present hour. I have never heard it preached properly although there are some authors who have given better opinions.

Christian – many preachers use the term “Christian” as synonymous with those who are born again, but in the same sermon they will speak of “true Christians” or “committed Christians” and similar terms. This confusion arises from the unbiblical use of the word Christian. Does the Christian church comprise only of those who are born again? What word should we use for those who are baptized into the Christian church? The confusion, arising from the unbiblical use of the word Christian, is manifest in many a sermon. Its proper meaning needs biblical exegesis. The confusion contributes to the failure to distinguish the visible church of Christians from the ‘invisible’ church comprising the whole election of grace.

Church – a few preachers will explain the biblical qualifications of the church of Jesus Christ, a major topic of 16th-century European Reformation, but even fewer will question the credentials of current organisations calling themselves a church of Jesus Christ.

The continued demonizing of Demas shows that such preachers are copying each other and not doing their own exegesis. When the prodigal son’s elder brother is put in the same category by such preachers, one needs to be concerned not only about their poor exegesis but also about the preacher’s spirit, which was Jesus’ teaching in Lk 15:31-32. It is not enough to have adequate doctrine but one needs to have a correct spirit Ps 51:10 and Lk 9:55.

Europe – the Gospel coming to Europe is the subject of another mistake, copied from preacher to preacher without personal biblical exegesis.

Evolutionary thinking – I have heard evolutionary eisegesis of Scripture by those who work close to the scientific field.  This is not evangelical preaching.

Foundation of the world – there are several biblical texts confused with each other and quoted wrongly with consequent wrong teaching.

The Free Offer of the Gospel – the inability of some evangelical preachers to combine the free offer of the Gospel with the biblical doctrine of divine election leads to the hypercalvinism on the one hand and Amyraldianism on the other. These are common mispresentations in evangelical preaching.

Grammar – the increasingly frequent use of “you and I” where the proper grammar should be “you and me” shows a wrong understanding of English grammar. Knowing that “you and me” can sometimes be wrong, these pseudo-grammarians frequently opt for “you and I” and often quite inappropriately. A visitor listening to such preachers would be entitled to ask whether they can exegete Greek and Hebrew when they do not know their native English language.

The Great Tribulation Mat 24:21 – is rarely mentioned far less preached by evangelicals, whereas its misinterpretation and its misapplication is central to the preaching of premillennialists and especially Dispensationalists who regularly refer to it, with political implications. It is expected of evangelical preachers to expose and contradict error, not only religious error but political error also. Some preachers do so.

Harvest Thanksgiving Prayer meeting – I attended a Harvest Thanksgiving Prayer meeting in which the Harvest was not mentioned in the sermon nor in any of the prayers, nor were there any prayers for those countries suffering from no harvest.  But this is not the only omission.  I have heard the occasional sermon that does not mention Jesus Christ from one end to the other.

The kingdom of God – I have never heard the kingdom of God distinguished from the kingdom of heaven, although one occasionally hears preachers say that they are the same thing, demonstrating the lack of biblical exegesis not only by evangelical preachers but in the commentaries that they consult. On the other hand, an erroneous distinction between these is a prominent feature of Dispensationalism, ignored by many evangelical preachers although Dispensationalism is so common, particularly in the large and influential churches in the United States of America. The kingdom of heaven is the visible Church; the kingdom of God is the invisible Church Jn 3:3,5.

Levi and Matthew are sometimes conflated into the same person because they were each publicans. You may regularly hear preachers conflating people and events. Levi and Matthew were not the same person.

The Lord’s Supper – over the years I have witnessed the failure to distinguish between the elements and the symbols in the Lord’s Supper, leading to erroneous statements being made by officiating ministers.

Love – sometimes you will hear it asserted that God does not love the reprobate. This is not helpful without explanation, and it is a good example of why preachers should make use of biblical language. Scripture plainly asserts that God loved the world in such a way that He gave His only begotten Son in order that whosoever believed in Him might have everlasting life Jn 3:16. This is a well-known Gospel text about God’s benevolent love to the world. It is more useful for a preacher to explain the difference between God’s benevolent and complacent love, which Scripture uses, than to make incomplete doctrinal statements in a dogmatic manner, even worse without explanation as a throwaway remark. The impression created by asserting that God does not love the reprobate suggests that the speaker is either a supralapsarian, or a hypercalvinist, or an imbalanced dogmatist who really meant that God does not love the reprobate with complacent love, or electing love, but this is almost a truism or tautology which has not added to the sum total of human knowledge. It reminds us that preachers should use biblical phraseology and explanation rather than create wrong impressions with throwaway one-liners.

Media – the mass media, and now social media, and popular singers are teaching false doctrine to such an extent that they are determining the opinions of whole swathes of society, yet few preachers address, expose and contradict these false doctrines.

Mis-quotations – there are many misquotations and slip-ups in preaching that are so common that preachers should take their time to ensure that they articulate them properly. This merits a list of its own, but a common one is saying that Peter betrayed Jesus rather than denied Him.

Ordination vows – I have heard ordination vows being reframed as “simply being asked and answering questions” and then “changing one’s mind” as justification for breaking or changing these vows. This inappropriate simplification of such important matters can be illustrated by considering whether Peter “simply asked questions” of Ananias and Sapphira, whomPeter accused of “lying to the Holy Ghost” Act 5:1-4. Making vows before God and an assembled Christian congregation to be faithful to the Word of God is one of the most solemn vows one can make, and they should not be taken lightly Ex 20:7, Ecc 5:4-5. Jesus had to correct such wrong ideas Mat 23:20-22. The worrying thing is that many evangelical preachers and office-bearers will shrug their shoulders at this. See Promises below.

Over-egging comments – it is not uncommon to hear over-egged comments from preachers trying to emphasize the point. I have heard the godly being described as “rotten to the core”, whereas the godly have got the Holy Spirit at their core Jn 4:14. It would be more accurate to say that the godly may feel rotten to the core, but this simply shows that they are wrong and they need better biblical teaching.

Phrases – the quotation of unsourced phrases from extra-biblical sources can mislead people into thinking that they are biblical phrases. “The prince of darkness” does not occur in the Bible but derives from John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Similarly various unbiblical ideas about hell are derived from graphic poems such as Dante’s Inferno and it is interesting that Google searches of such terms often has popular films as the first search result. Thus people’s ideas and even theology are being molded by extra-biblical material, which has been demonstrated over several centuries by the various hymns. Some denominations, such as the Brethren, changed their hymns and their hymn books if a prominent hymn-writer fell out of favour, and similarly one needs to ask what ideas and theology are being promoted by each new published version of hymns.

Politics – politics is such a dirty word that one rarely hears preachers mentioning it. Yet politicians preach false doctrine and make laws to implement unbiblical practices, which set the framework within which children are taught and society operates. Preachers of the Gospel are expected to contradict false doctrine, whatever its source, whether in the media or politics. The only way to peacefully change the laws of a country is through politicians. We need Christian politics, and to preach about it.

Prayers – 1. it is wrong to preach in public prayers. Preaching is addressed to people while prayer is addressed to God. 2. There are some who think that they have authority to control the prayers of other Christians but Jesus taught us that we ought always to pray Lk 18:1.

Preaching glosses – are quite common and may take up too much room here to correct. Indeed, it wastes everyone’s time checking if they are correct. A recent one is a preacher saying that the rich, young ruler went awa from Jesus “weeping”. It is an unwarranted gloss added to Mk 10:22, Mat 19:22 and Lk 18:23.

Preaching from the wrong text – it is not uncommon to hear a good sermon applied to the wrong text, such as a warning against backsliding and apostacy from 2Tim 4:10, wrongly applied to Demas. Also using Mat 25:1-2 to warn people to be ready for death. I have heard older ministers say that the Rev. Such and Such “did wondrously and the text looked on” Jdg 13:19, meaning that the sermon was good but it had little to do with the selected text.

Promises – it is remarkable that some evangelical ministers do not keep their promises, both private and public promises.  They seem to overlook such texts as “every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” Mat 12:36. The most notable public example in recent times is the breaking of Ordination Vows, see above. More attention should be paid to “you ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” Jam 4:15.

Public notices – intimations and announcements are sometimes read in such a cursory manner that it suggests to me a measure of disrespect towards the congregation, as if it does not matter if people hear and understand them properly; see Scripture below. Further, those who make public intimations should do the work to establish that the details are correct and worthy of the attention of its hearers. This error is not confined to preachers; the same can occasionally be experienced on the television media and in public adverts, where the point is lost because of unclear speech. Even worse are those documentaries with translations in small white letters that one cannot read because there is so little contrast between the letters and their background. Think of all the effort put into the production of a documentary only to ruin its effectiveness by such thoughtlessness.

Public speaking: there are some preachers whose habit is to drop their voice at the end of a sentence. This means that many older people do not hear all that they say. It shows that such preachers get very little feedback from their sermons, or at least honest feedback, or possibly they do not seek it. What is the point in preparing public discourses if people cannot hear them? I recall in the early 1980s an elderly deaf lady drawing my attention to this and ever since I would look at the elderly when announcing the Psalm to sing to see if they had picked up my words.

Quotations of Scripture: some public speakers are very mean with the quotation of Scripture in their public prayers and sermons, whereas preachers are in the business of promoting the Word of God. Can it be that no portion of Scripture has so gripped the preacher’s attention since his last sermon that he has no new passage Mat 13:52 or text to use in his next public service, either in preaching or in prayer? Preachers are meant to give themselves to the Word of God and prayer Act 6:4. What is there to show for it? It is said of John Bunyan that his blood was bibline – prick him anywhere and the Bible flowed out.

References – preachers are meant to preach the truth, but I regularly hear wrong references being articulated. I consider this an insult to one’s hearers, as if such preachers expect their hearers to do their own research to establish the truth of what they have just said. This is not good enough. It can be witnessed in many areas of public speaking, such as public notices, see above. These may be announced wrongly or inaudibly so that hearers are expected to discover the details for themselves. What is the point in a story or illustration with no sources? One cannot use them or repeat them, although many people do, and mistakenly or unconsciously change the details in the process. 

Repentance – I have heard an evangelical minister declare publicly that he did not understand daily repentance.

Scripture – the public reading of Scripture can be with so little emphasis, or even with the wrong emphasis, that one wonders if the reader understands the meaning of the passage. The selection of Scripture is sometimes subordinated to other parts of the service, such as prematurely cutting short the passage read, as if the word of man is more useful and relevant than the Word of God. It betrays a poor attitude to the Word of God. Biblical texts may be occasionally referenced, but some preachers rarely use them either in preaching and even more rarely in public prayer in petition to the Lord.

Scripture – in attempting to interpret Scripture, people may say or write that such and such a text “does not make sense”. This is wrong. Scripture itself cannot be accused of “not making sense” although a mistaken interpretation or translation of Scripture may not make sense. A biblical view of the divine inspiration 2Tim 3:16 and divine preservation Ps 12:6-7 of the infallible Scripture should stop people making such unwise statements and it is helpful to distinguish between Scripture itself and attempted explanations or translations of it.

Sermons – occasionally a preacher will say that he will expound a text in context, and then there is no context mentioned at all, neither in the chapter containing the text nor the previous chapter. It is important for preachers to explain exactly what they plan to address so that people do not expect one thing and get another. Three headings are not enough. These are snot an explanation but a plan for exposition. People may still ask, So what? The whole sermon needs to be one understandable unit.

Sources – I have heard unbiblical opinions justified by preachers in various ways. When one preacher said that the Bible had nothing good to say about Lot, my wife made a list from the Bible of Lot’s good points and gave it to him. He lamely responded that he was quoting ‘such-and-such’ a preacher. Another preacher justified not discussing a church practice by saying that if it was good enough for the Free Church fathers it was good enough for him. I have also witnessed unnecessary passion as the response to a disagreeable source. None of this helps, and it leads to lack of confidence in what preachers say on other subjects.

Throwaway remarks – are not helpful and can be damaging if they are not explained properly. Presumably there is a reason for introducing a throwaway remark, so they merit some explanation, and public speakers, and preachers in particular, should have given careful thought to what they intend to say. Throwaway remarks are liable to be misunderstood and do not help those who do not understand the point being made. Further, if they are wron

The Trinity – the three Persons of the Trinity are not “equal in substance” but “the same in substance”.

Truth – evangelicals claim to be interested in the Truth, so one might expect those who publish books and material online to check the truth of what they say before they publish it. As it is difficult to correct mistakes in books, it is all the more imperative that these should be thoroughly checked before publication, yet I frequently come across poorly edited books. Online publishing is easier to correct, but mistakes often remain for long periods of time. The problem with published mistakes is that each reader is either misled by the mistake or they must spend their own time checking the truth of the statement. The time wasted is thus multiplied by the number of people checking it out, whereas the publisher should have spent their time checking it out in order to save other people wasting their time. Ordinary charity demands this, to say no more about Christian behaviour and regard for the truth. There are many anecdotes used in preaching which fail this test.

A list of biblical references

These examples have been randomly selected and will be expanded with time. They show how little personal biblical exegesis is done by many preachers.

Psalms – people who do not sing the Psalms overlook much biblical experimental theology, and the experience of godly people. Yet even Psalm-singers can misunderstand what they are singing; see Book of Life above. I listened to a lecture on the Covenants in the Bible by a life-long psalm-singer, which covered eight biblical covenants, but succeeded in missing out Ps 105:8-12. The topic in these verses is rarely mentioned in my experience. Shortly after this, another elderly lifelong psalm-singing preacher misinterpreted this covenant as the covenant of grace.

Ps 119:105 – this text is regularly misquoted suggesting a failure to understand the imagery.

Isa 30:25 – I heard an infamous sermon on this text just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the New York Twin Tower in which the preacher applied this text to the collapse of the Trade Centre and identified it with the fall of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. I was shocked at the interpretation and astonished that no-one blinked an eyelid at it. No-one mentioned it from that day till now. If a journalist had got hold of it at the time, the preacher would have been the butt of everyone’s criticism for lack of patriotism and for his exegesis. There could even have been implications for two of his own sons who were serving in the British armed forces at the time.

Jer 14:8-9 – some years ago I attended a Conference in my home town at which a visiting preacher preached on Jer 14:8-9. The presiding minister read only the first nine verses of the chapter, and the visiting preacher preached his sermon as if the rest of the chapter did not exist. His message was about our need to plead and intercede as Jeremiah did, which is very good and true, but it is also a good example of preaching without regard to context. If either preacher had read Jer 14:11, they would have seen that the Lord told Jeremiah not to pray for this people, and Jer 15:1 shows that even the prayers of Moses and Samuel would not have availed to prevent the well-merited judgments coming upon the people.

Mat 5:3 – see the proper distinction explained here.

Mat 19:20 – there was no “rich young ruler”, although we often hear it asserted.

Mat 24:3 – the usual evangelical opinion on this text, and therefore their exegesis of this chapter, is that there are two questions here. An unbiased exegete might think that the four apostles Mk 13:3 thought that they were asking Jesus one question but it becomes apparent throughout the chapter that Jesus is treating it as more than one question. This being so, a review of Mat 24:3 looks like three questions unless one imposes the common eisegesis on the text that interprets it as two questions. When will evangelicals begin to exegete Jesus’ answer properly and discern that He has treated the inquiry as three questions and has answered accordingly? Are most evangelicals hidebound to their commentaries or will they study the biblical text for themselves?

Mat 25:32 – it is common to hear preachers expound the sheep and the goats but have you heard preachers explain and expound the four groups Jesus speaks about in this context?

Mat 27:38 – too many preachers refer to the two robbers Mat 27:38 crucified alongside Jesus as murderers. Scripture does not say so, but for preachers to make public statements that cannot be substantiated from Scripture demonstrates that they are happy to make public statements that they have never checked out. Peter calls Barabbas a murderer Act 3:14, and Mk 15:7 does the same, but this cannot simply be transferred to the other robbers, especially when Scripture does not do so and Matthew and Mark say no more than their being robbers Mk 15:27. A thief may steal property but not harm a person; the word used for these robbers is the same as Jesus used in His parable of the good Samaritan Lk 10:30 in which robbers assaulted the victim as well as stole from him but did not murder him. Barabbas was both a robber Jn 18:40 and a murderer.

Lk 15:28-32 – I have never heard a preacher deal properly with the elder son, commonly referred to as the elder brother. They may make derogatory and I have even heard vicious comments about him, but they do not address what Scripture actually says about him. If they did proper exegesis they might even see themselves in the mirror. John MacArthur has a sermon on the most misunderstood parable of Jesus, but the elder brother is probably the most neglected part of a parable.

Lk 18:35 – some preachers will wrongly conflate this incident with blind Bartimaeus Mk 10:46. Jesus healed the blind man in Lk 18:35 on His way into Jericho. It is likely that Bartimaeus and his blind companion Mat 20:30 heard about this and so they sought their healing when Jesus was leaving Jericho.

Lk 19:8 – Zacchaeus says “if” I have taken anything from any man by false accusation; see this comment.

Jn 4:10 – some interpret ‘living water’ as the Gospel or the grace and mercy of the Gospel. This is wrong. 1. the godly continually thirst for the grace and mercy of the Gospel, but Jesus says here that they shall never thirst Jn 4:14. 2. Jesus mentions two conditions for giving this living water, but the Gospel is not given to people conditionally, and certainly not upon these two conditions. The Gospel is given freely to any who will hear and even to those who do not want to hear it. 3. Jesus having given this living water, and anyone having drunk this living water, they no longer thirst Jn 4:14. They do not need to come repeatedly to satisfy their thirst Jn 4:13 because this living water becomes a well of water inside them springing up into everlasting life. Jesus is referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when a person is born again Jn 3:3,5.7. He will give them the Holy Spirit Who will continually dwell in them and develop their spirit into everlasting life. Having received the Holy Spirit once, they will never be without Him. However, they continually thirst for the Gospel and the grace and mercy of the Gospel.

Jn 10:27 – Christ’s sheep is not the biblical term for the elect but for those who are currently following Christ. Many of the elect are not yet following Christ.

Jn 15:2 – the failure to distinguish purging and pruning, and thus curtailing the teaching of the verse, is very common and I have never heard it properly explained publicly.

Jn 15:5 – I have heard this explained as people being regenerated and becoming branches in the true Vine, but the same Reformed preacher did not explain how such a branch did not produce fruit and was then cut off.

1Cor 11:28 – “and so let him eat” is misunderstood not only by evangelical preachers but by current versions of the Bible.

Gal 3:24 – it is very common to hear evangelical preachers explain this text as the moral law convicting sinners of their sins and bringing them to Christ. However, the moral law never taught anyone about Christ. Where does the moral law speak about Christ and salvation? Only the Gospel teaches about Christ. Rather, this text, in context, is referring to the ceremonial law, which has both law and Gospel within it.

Gal 5:4 – I heard a struggle over the meaning of this verse at a theological conference. Arminians think that a born-again believer can lose divine grace but Php 1:6 and many other texts show that this is not possible, but on the other hand some Calvinists do not know how to interpret the verse. Various interpretations were discussed but not the correct one. Paul addresses those who are teaching that they “are justified by the law” and tells that them “you are fallen from grace”, that is from the doctrine of salvation by grace. It is Pauline shorthand.

Eph 1:4 – this text is regularly mixed up with Rev 13:8 and with consequent wrong teaching.

Eph 2:12 – it is not uncommon to hear Christians pray that they have “no hope, and are without God in the world”, or to apply it to the unconverted in the congregation and even preachers use the text like this, referring it to the unconverted. This is wrong. 1. the contextual meaning is that these people were once without the Gospel. 2. this cannot be said of those who are under the Gospel, even if they are unconverted. As long as they are under the Gospel, the hope of the Gospel is presented to them. They have the Light but they need to believe in the Light – “While you have Light, believe in the Light, that you may be the children of Light” Jn 12:36.

Col 1:27 – this text is regularly misquoted by mixing it up with Gal 4:19 and with consequent wrong teaching.

1Tim 1:19 – it is not correct to apply making “shipwreck” to the godly.

1Tim 3:2 – the misunderstanding of this text has done untold harm ecclesiastically, domestically and personally to Christians and Christian churches.

2Tim 4:10 – it is very common to hear Demas described as an apostate. This demonstrates poor exegesis, prejudicial thinking, selective quotation and the repeating of other people’s opinions. There is little excuse for this because long ago John Gill drew attention in his Bible commentary that Demas “might forsake the apostle, and yet not forsake Christ.” It is solemn to demonise Demas in such a categorical but prejudicial manner.

Heb 12:1 – it is common for people to interpret “the sin that does so easily beset us” as 1. unbelief, 2. pride or 3. the particular darling sin that individuals harbour in their heart, varying from person to person. Neither of these is correct. Unbelief, pride and darling sins are within people, but Heb 12:1 refers to a sin outside us, “besetting us round about”, the basic meaning of the Greek word it translates. It is sinful behaviour in one’s peer group that works on your thinking, speech and behaviour. Exegesis of the text yields the result that the besetting sin is peer-group pressure. In order to keep in with one’s peer group, young and old will allow themselves to be led along a pathway that they may not want to follow. On this basis, people will not believe nor follow Jesus Christ, John 5:44. It may be that one needs to change one’s peer group to avoid its besetting sin Ps 1:1, Ps 2:2-3, Pro 1:10, Pro 13:20, Ex 23:2, 1Cor 15:33 and 1Pe 4:3-4. The besetting sin is enough to destroy anyone but Jesus gives His people the means and the ability to stand against it Eph 6:10-11, and Paul warns the godly to lay aside dangerous, ungodly peer groups that would interfere with the Christian race to the heavenly finishing line Heb 12:1-2.

Rev 13:8 – this text is regularly misquoted by mixing it up with Eph 1:4 and with consequent wrong teaching.

Rev 20:1-8 – in spite of six references in six verse Rev 20:2-7 there are evangelical Christians who will assert that there is no biblical millennium.

Links:

14 Jan 2014: an Index of exegetical issues.

Texts that are not put into practice

I have decided to add some texts that are rarely put into practice, particularly in congregational life.

“As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”

1Peter 4:10

What forum does your congregation have for ministering each other’s gifts?

3Jn 1:10 – who stops Diotrephes from having the pre-eminence in your congregation?