First Principles of Bible Study

    The second principle we shall examine is the truth that the Bible is its own interpreter. This truth is of great consequence, for it determines the method by which we examine each verse of the Holy Scriptures.
    When Bible teachers disagree on a doctrine, frequently one of them will say, "Well, he has his opinion, his interpretation, and I have mine. Therefore, we don’t see this verse in the same way."
    If this teacher’s statement is correct and conclusive, we can do almost anything we wish with the Bible. We become free to read the Bible and make our own personal judgments as to what God means in every verse. Unfortunately, this is the thinking behind the writing of paraphrased Bibles; this is the thinking that has influenced some of the newer translations of the Bible.
    This makes man the ultimate judge and the final authority. It effectively declares that God has written words and phrases that we call the Bible but which depend upon us, as teachers, to decide what God means; thus, the reader has the final say as to what is truth.
    This kind of "anything goes" thinking has spawned cults and false gospels that prevail all over the world. A teacher interprets verses according to a preconceived idea and then tried to show that his gospel is Bible-based.
    This condition exists in many of our churches and congregations. One of the most puzzling phenomena currently facing the church is that theologians of various denominations are so far apart in their understanding of the doctrines supposedly related to or derived from the Bible. A result of this is that Lutherans remain Lutheran from generation to generation, Baptists remain Baptist, Presbyterian remain Presbyterian, Methodists remain Methodist, etc. A basic reason for the existence of different denominations is that each denomination has reached a different conclusion concerning doctrines.
    For example, some denominations hold the premillennial view from generation to generation. Other denominations hold the postmillennial view from generation to generation, and others hold the amillennial view through generations.

    There can be only one true account of the return of Christ, so at least two of the foregoing views must be wrong and unbiblical. The return of Christ and the end of the world simply cannot take place in three different ways.
    The same problem exists with other doctrines. For instance, there are differences between denominations in the teachings of the nature and character of salvation and the meaning of baptism. One would think that as diligent students of the scriptures, who love the Lord and continue to search the Bible, they would come closer and closer to each other as they grow closer to the fullness of truth. If this were the condition in each denomination, all denominations would gradually agree more and more. Yet year follows year, and there is no rapprochement of any kind.
    This phenomenon is a result of the fact that the Bible is not fully relied upon as the source of absolute truth. The Bible is often regarded as just another of the various disciplines or philosophies of the secular world. One can understand the proliferation of different schools of thought in the secular world, because in the discipline is allowed to exist independently of the others and is accepted just as it stands.
    When we deal with the Bible, however, we are dealing with absolute truth. Anything that is taught, any doctrine that is held, that is not in agreement with truth is false. In short, any doctrine not in agreement with truth is false. In short, any doctrine not in agreement with absolute truth is false. In short, any doctrine not in agreement with absolute truth is a lie. If a teacher or pastor declares to his congregation, "Thus saith the Lord," when the Lord has not said that, he is mouthing doctrines that are out of man’s mind rather than God’s. We immediately sense how reprehensible this is.
    If well-meaning, learned theologians teach three different answers to the same questions, we are forced to conclude that someone is teaching that which is false. This is an exceedingly serious matter – no child of God wants to preach lies. It is a matter that will not go away by itself.
    There is evidence that these differences in understanding biblical doctrine exist today. What is the problem? We can both understand the problem and find its solution.
    The problem is that theologians and pastors are taught to come to the Bible from the perspective of the already established theological position of the church of denomination to which they belong. A Baptist is taught to come to the Bible with Baptist presuppositions; a Lutheran

comes to the Bible with Lutheran presuppositions. One who is Reformed, comes with a Reformed perspective. Theological presuppositions govern the way the Bible student interprets and understands the Bible. Each denomination believes that its presuppositions reflect Bible truth, and the teachers and pastors cling tenaciously to them. They are convinced that perspectives from other denominations are most likely incorrect and are not to be considered or followed, although they readily acknowledge that each denomination has a right to exist. They believe their denominations presuppositions are the most accurate, and they remain with them. The consequence is that the Baptist remains a Baptist, the Lutheran remains a Lutheran, the Presbyterian a Presbyterian, etc.
    Unfortunately, most theologians come to the Bible in much the same way students come to social science, art, music and philosophy classes. For example, there are many schools of philosophy: the Eleatic school of philosophy, the Ionian school of philosophy, Byzantine philosophy, Arabic, and Western philosophy, to name a few. Each philosophy has its original thinkers, faithful followers, and some truth in it. Ordinarily, followers of one school of philosophy accept the rightful existence of and potential contribution of other schools. No one would conclude that the philosophy he follows has absolute truth. He follows a particular school of philosophy because he believes that it is more acceptable than any other.
    Most theologians approach the Bible the same way. They do not regard the Bible as the law book of absolute truth. It is a book to be viewed from their domination’s school of thinking. They contend that there are various schools of thought (denominational presuppositions) that relate to how the Bible is to be interpreted. The school of thought followed will influence conclusions derived from the Bible. They feel they are being honest if they remain faithful to their particular denominational presuppositions. It is believed that theologians of other denominations are faithful to the Word if they remain faithful to their denominational presuppositions. In this way, the study of the Bible is viewed as an activity similar to the study of social sciences.
    May the study of the Bible be regarded as a social science? Is it not the book of absolute truth? Only when a student realizes it is absolute truth does he understand what the Bible is. If he has not come to this realization, in essence he is teaching less than the truth – he is teaching falsehoods.
    Theologians should recognize that the Bible teaches absolute truth. Is it not true that the conclusion that all men are sinners is absolute

truth? This is also the case in regard to conclusions such as: the certainty of death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; God created the world, Christ will come to judge the world, there will be a new heaven and a new earth; and salvation is possible only through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
    These teachings are absolute truth. They are taken from the Bible, which is the book of absolute truth. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the pastor and the teacher to study the Bible until he has found the absolute truth of every aspect of the Gospel. Only then can he be sure that he is not teaching a lie.
    The Bible is unrelated to the social sciences and cannot be studied in the same manner. It must be approached analytically, as one would approach an engineering book or a law book, even though the engineering book or law book does not begin to have the level of truth that is contained in the Bible – it has no peer. It is absolutely true in all its aspects. We must carefully, prayerfully and diligently search out the truth. As we do, God Himself will lead us into the truth.
    Now we can see what the church has done. In advertently, by approaching the Bible as social sciences are approached, the church has placed itself above the Bible. Theologians within these churches would vigorously deny this assertion. They would maintain that the Bible is altogether infallible and inerrant and is the only authority; the denominational presuppositions are the ultimate authority.
    The argument is made that each presupposition is derived from the Bible, and therefore the Bible is actually the ultimate authority. In practice, however, the presupposition is never questioned by most theologians. They treat their presupposition as being inviolate; it belongs to that denomination and must never be tampered with.
    The solution to this problem is: we must go to the Bible with no prejudices and no presuppositions whatsoever. If we are to find truth, the presuppositions have to be examined and critiqued as vigorously as any doctrine that we claim to have received from the Bible. We must let the Bible alone guide us into truth. We must recognize that we are human beings with feet of clay; we have sin-tainted minds. Our minds are finite and not like the infinite mind of God. We must hold the position, "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4)

    It could be argued that the preliminary statements of solution and principles of Bible interpretation presented in this study are presuppositions. However, the question at issue is: These statements come from where? Are they biblical teachings? Can it be demonstrated that they originate in the pages of Holy Writ, or are they just someone’s theory? If they cannot be shown to be derived from the Bible, they should be corrected. No presupposition should be retained if it is not in complete harmony with the Bible.
    There is agreement among various denominations that the Bible is true, that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and that it is the only rule for doctrine and practice. There is also agreement that we cannot trust our minds, and that we must put every thought under the searchlight of the Word of God. This is what the Bible clearly teaches.
    If theologians would come to the Bible with no more than these common presuppositions, and humbly let the Bible lead them into truth, there would be increasingly more agreement between those who are children of God, regardless of denominational background. Truth is truth. An incorrect doctrine is the light of the Scriptures is the most serious problem in the church today.
    If we are truly children of God, at the moment of salvation we received our resurrected souls in which we never wish to sin again. Even though our unsaved bodies continue to lust after sin, there is within us a constant and earnest desire to do the will of God. As we read and study the Bible, we learn more and more about how we can live in accord with God’s will. Because we have this intense desire to do God’s will, we become greatly troubled when we discover that we have been holding wrong doctrine. If we read a Bible verse that appears to contradict a doctrine we hold, we will become concerned. Our new nature (our resurrected soul), has an intense desire to be true of God’s Word. This concern will not disappear until we have re-examined this doctrine and we are comfortable with all that the Bible teaches concerning it.
    The tragic other-side-of –the-coin is that if we persist in a sinful practice after reading statements in the Bible that show the practice is sinful, we should wonder whether or not we really saved.
    If we continue to hold and teach wrong doctrine after we read Scripture that suggests it is wrong, we must ask the logical and fair question, "How can I be a child of God and blatantly continue holding wrong doctrine?" The seriousness of this question cannot be overestimated.

    It may be that as we humbly approach the Bible, and let God lead us into truth, we find that a doctrine or a series of doctrines taught in our church as denominational presuppositions are indeed true to the Word of God. In this case, we are assured that the church fathers who presented these doctrines did their work well. The Holy Spirit enlightened their hearts and minds to truth.
    If I may insert a personal note. I was brought up in a church that is Reformed in doctrine. While I had heard about the so-called points of Calvinism, I had never been taught well enough so that I could go to the Bible to prove any of these five points that concern themselves with the doctrines of grace. The fact is, I can recall reading essays by learned authors on these doctrines in my younger days in some of our church papers and being very confused by what I read.
    However, in my role as host of the "Open Forum" program, people may ask me questions concerning the Bible, "live" on the air, and I have had to face with great zeal the whole question of the nature of salvation. When I was finally able to ferret out all biblical teachings concerning the nature of salvation, to my utter delight I found that the five points of Calvinism were in agreement with everything that I had found in my independent studies of the scriptures. The Reformers of old had done their work well and accurately.
    On the other hand, in my personal experience I have also found that our historical statements of the church are not as biblical. For example, today we have confessions like the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons or Dort, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession. While I have a very high regard for these confessions of the church (because in many cases they have been hammered out in the crucible of a church facing apostasy or heresy, and because in the main they can be tested and found to be quite accurate insofar as the Scriptures are concerned), nevertheless, there are statements in some of them which I believe can be shown to be incorrect insofar as the Bible is concerned.
    Do we dare to disagree with the confessions? We must dare to disagree if we can show from the Scriptures that the confession is incorrect. Otherwise, the confession becomes an authority higher than the Bible.
    As long as we are on the subject of confessions, I think it is appropriate to make this statement: The confessions have served the church exceedingly well in that they have provided stability at times when theologians might have become careless in their study of the Scriptures. They can give a church a lot of security. On the other hand,

they can also do a great disservice to the church if the confession is looked upon as being inviolate. We must realize that the confession is the work of man, not the work of God. Only the Bible is the work of God. I am tremendously pleased with Article VII of the Belgic Confession, which reads:

the sacrifice on the altar. Their zeal, sincerity, and conviction could not change the fact that they were false prophets. The prophets and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, together with Saul of Tarsus, were convinced that they had truth, and they did everything possible to stop the spread of the Gospel, as taught by the Rabbi, Jesus. They could not be faulted for their zeal, sincerity, or conviction, but they were false prophets. The followers of Jesus were the true prophets. To be a true prophet in our day, it is imperative that only God is true, and every man is a liar. We all have within us the possibility of self-deception.
    Even after we are saved, we have sin-stained minds. No one on this side of the grave can know truth perfectly. The most careful teacher can at times be in error. Every time we teach in error, we are teaching a lie. Every teacher must go humbly before the Lord and ask forgiveness for that which was taught that was untrue. We all see through a glass darkly.
    Teaching doctrine is analogous to living our Christian lives. We saw earlier that as we study the Bible, and we find sin in our lives, our earnest desire is to turn away from that sin. We ask the Lord’s forgiveness, and we ask Him to strengthen us as we turn away from that sin. The life of the believer is one of constant learning as he discovers how to live an increasingly more holy life before God.
    Each teacher and each pastor should continually be learning doctrine. He can never say there is nothing more to learn. If he has stopped learning, he might was well be dead. We repent of sinful practices as we discover them in our lives, and if we discover we have held and taught an unbiblical doctrine as we study the Bible, we should ask the Lord’s forgiveness and turn away from that unbiblical teaching.
    Obviously, this is easier said than dome. When we repent of unbiblical practices, we usually have the approbation of our congregation, and this encourages us to take the new path. However, when we discover that a denominational presupposition is not biblical or we discover that a doctrine we hold is unbiblical, and we turn away from it, we risk bearing the wrath of colleagues and the wrath of the congregation. We may appear to them to be heretics because we no longer adhere to that particular denominational presupposition or doctrine. A consequence may be that we are driven out of the denomination.
    This consequence may seem strict and unwarranted, but that is how monolithic denominations are in regards to what they believe. It is

only God’s grace working in one’s life that enables him to courageously face the consequences of coming closer to the truth.
    I cannot help but comment on the fact that churches, to a high degree, have figured out how to have a comfortable existence, where everything is agreeable and happy. This makes one wonder why Jesus said in Matthew 5:10-12:

is increasingly found in connection with doctrines as divorce and remarriage after divorce, the right of women to rule and speak within the congregation, birth control, and the responsibility of the church to physically feed and clothe the hungry masses of the world. Doctrines that favor miraculous healing and additional revelation from God are finding greater approval across denominational lines.
    This is an amazing phenomenon in view of the fact that this latter-day unity is based on principles that are contrary to the Bible. One cannot help but wonder if this is the end product of a church age in which the churches have become careless with the Bible because of presuppositions. When bringing judgment, God first blinds theologian so that they begin to rewrite the rules of the Bible. As a final judgment on the church prior to Judgment Day, He will allow the churches to be overcome by false gospels – gospels in which it is taught that there is more to divine revelation than the Bible alone.
    We have wandered beyond the scope of our study, and we should now return to the question: How are we to understand the Bible? How are we to interpret the difficult passages of the Bible? God gives us the answer to this question in I Corinthians 2:13:

those who have done good works, such as fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick will go into heaven to be eternally with the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems that this passage teaches that our salvation is based on our good works. This passage is a convincing "proof" passage for those who believe that their good works make a contribution towards their salvation.
    However, those who have read more widely and more carefully in the Bible immediately become uneasy with the conclusions of the last paragraph. They argue, "But doesn’t the Bible say that we are saved by grace and not by our works?" Indeed, they are correct. Salvation is by grace alone. Our works are the proof, or evidence, or result, of God’s saving power in our lives.
    How do we know that salvation is by grace and not by works? How do we know that whatever Matthew 25:31-46 is teaching, it is not teaching that our good works are the basis of, or grounds for, our salvation? We know this because many other verses in the Bible teach and emphasize that salvation is altogether of grace. Ephesians 2:8-10 is one passage that teaches that salvation is altogether of grace:

    In this revealing passage, God shows us that the cessation of war that He has in view is not between political nations; it is between the dominion of Satan, to which we belong before we are saved and the kingdom of God, which we enter into when we become saved. Christ came as the Prince of Peace. Before we were saved we were slaves of Satan; we were at war with God. After we became saved, we were at peace with God. Isaiah 2:4 speaks of the coming of the Messiah to bring spiritual peace to this world. All who believe on Him have come into this peace. Before we were saved, we were a nation at war with the nation, which is the kingdom of God. When we become saved, we become part of the kingdom of God, and therefore we are at peace with God. We have become servants of God, who care for the spiritual needs of this world. This is the import of the language, which describes believers who use plowshares and pruninghooks.
    This understanding of Isaiah 2:4 agrees with all that the Bible teaches. This understanding came only after we realized that the verses, which apparently were quite clear, had to be examined in light of the entire Bible. Only then could we be satisfied with our understanding of these verses or any verses.
    Thus, we can see that the hermeneutical principle that declares, "If this verse in question makes a common sense as it is read, then seek no other sense," violates a fundamental scriptural principle. Regardless of how clear a verse may appear to be, the doctrinal conclusion we derive from that verse may appear to be, the doctrinal conclusion we derive from that verse should not be taught as Gospel truth unless it has been checked against anything and everything else in the Bible that might relate to that conclusion.
    Theologians frequently fall into a snare because they violate the principle that conclusions concerning one part of the Bible must be checked with the rest of the Bible. They study a verse or a passage and come to a conclusion but they do not take the time to see if it harmonizes with everything else the Bible teaches on that subject.
    The very structure of theological study often fosters unbiblical conclusions. One theologian is an expert in Greek, another is an expert in Hebrew, one in the Old Testament, another in the New Testament. One is considered to have his expertise in the doctrines of Christ another in the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, and still another in the doctrine of the end times. Theological courses are set up on various subjects so that there is a course in soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), another in Christology (the doctrine of Christ), and another in eschatology (the doctrine of the last things), etc.

    Structuring theological truth does not necessarily result in wrong conclusions, but it frequently does. For example, it is possible for a theological professor to find many verses that deal with the nature and purpose of the church, and by studying these verses, a theologian may become an expert in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). He may come to and teach conclusions that appear biblical as he views them in the light of the verses that speak about the church. He may have an earnest desire to faithful to the Bible. No one would fault his integrity as he teaches all that he has learned from the Bible.
    However, if he has not tested his conclusion to see if they are in harmony with all that the Bible teaches concerning the nature of salvation, the nation of Israel, the end time, the Holy Spirit, and everything else in the Bible, the likelihood is that some of his conclusions concerning the church will be invalid.
    He may have done theologically what the designer of a building may do. He designs a building with beams to carry certain stresses and forces but he fails to see that the foundation design is capable of carrying the same stresses and forces. This practice would soon result in failure of the building. Any designer knows that he must carefully design all parts of the structure to make sure that each beam, and each bolt, etc., will be able to sustain the stresses and forces that will be upon the building. Only then will the building be safe.
    Similarly, any conclusion we reach based on our understanding of a particular verse or verses must be tested for scriptural integrity by everything in the Bible that relates to these verses.
    We must look to the Bible to interpret Scripture. We cannot look at Matthew 25:31-46 and understand it unless we examine it in the light of everything else the Bible teaches regarding the subject matter in these verses. Only then can we know that these verses are a parable which teach spiritual truth related to salvation.
    This is the method of interpretation the Bible tells us to use, as I Corinthians 2:13 declares:

realize that to compare spiritual things with spiritual is to compare one part of the Bible with every other part of the Bible. Thus, we are correct in our conclusion that we are to interpret the Bible with the Bible. We are to compare everything in the Bible with everything else in the Bible that may relate to the verse or word being studied. After we have examined the word, phrase, or verse in question in the light of the rest of the Bible (so that we know we are in agreement with the whole Bible), we are ready to teach the meaning of this verse or word.
    This means that the student of the Bible must become increasingly expert in the whole Bible. It means that he must unceasingly study every aspect of Bible truth. This is a life-long endeavor, and it requires constant diligence and perseverance. There will be times when it will be necessary to set aside previously held conclusions that do not stand under the scrutiny of the whole Bible. This requires grace and humility, but it is essential if truth is to be served.

The Bible is its Own Dictionary

    If we continue to study every aspect of the Bible, we will discover that the Bible is its own dictionary. If we wish to know the meaning of a word in the Bible, we do not go to a dictionary of Greek or Hebrew (the original languages of the Bible). To do so would be useless. The meanings of words have changed during the last two thousand years to such a degree that it would be a wonder if any of the words used in the Bible had the same meaning today.
    We must find all the verses in the Bible in which the word in question is found; then, we see how it is used in these verses. Based on this information, we can begin to discern its meaning and know how it is used in the verse being studied.
    To discover the meaning of a verse, it is necessary to do a study of the words and concepts in the verse to see how they are used throughout the Bible. By this means, we can bring the whole Bible to bear on the verse in question.
    Occasionally we find a word in the original Hebrew or Greek that is used only once in the entire Bible. In this case, it cannot be compared with its use in other parts of the Bible. However, we can be sure that the content of the word will convey a truth which is found in other places in the Bible. Therefore, it is from the Bible that we can know the parameters that prescribe how we are to understand the word.

    The use of biblical words in ancient secular writings may help in finding the meaning of some words, but the secular record must never be considered as trustworthy as the Bible. The Bible’s use of the word must be the final authority in determining its meaning.
    Only infrequently is it impossible to determine the meaning of a Hebrew or Greek word. It is best then to leave it in its original language and trust that at a future date God will open the eyes of a Bible student to learn its meaning.

The Bible is its Own Grammar Book

    The Bible is its own grammar book. The careful student may begin to understand tenses, moods, and voices in Hebrew and Greek by studying these languages in the ancient secular accounts. It is conventional for the Bible student to go to Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries for this purpose, but conclusions based on secular evidence cannot stand until they are subjected to the scrutiny of the Bible.
    Ideally, the rules of grammar and the meanings of words should be derived entirely from the Bible, because the Bible alone must stand as the final authority in all matters of which it speaks. This includes concepts, ideas, and truths and the form in which these ideas, concepts and truths are presented. The Bible would be less than the Word of God if this were not so because the grammar and the words are the means by which Bible truth is presented.
    The serious Bible student should be relentless in his study of the Bible. Only as it increasingly becomes part of his life will he be able to draw closer and closer to the rich storehouse of truths,which is the Bible.
    A peril of the Bible teacher is that he may be impressed with the fact that a great many theologians agree on a particular doctrine. It is easy to simply trust that the judgment of these theologians is accurate. Unfortunately, however, theologians frequently build on what other theologians have said rather than checking the Scriptures to make sure that previous theologians have been accurate. Wonderfully, God has given us His Word so that any belief, regardless of how widely held it may be, can be analyzed and checked against the Scriptures.
    When Elijah stood on Mount Carmel, he stood alone against hundreds of other prophets who agreed theologically, but Elijah was right and they were wrong. Consensus is never a basis for truth.

    The Bible is the revelation of God’s will to man. God is the author. God used human authors – they spoke out of their own experience, training, environment, culture, and personality – but they were used of God to produce the Bible, and what they penned, right down to the word and the letters of each word, was the precise word God desired to use as the revelation of His will. Whether Paul or Jesus or Jeremiah or an unnamed scribe spoke or wrote, what was written was God’s Word.
    Before we can know of any verse of phrase in the Bible, we must compare the conclusion we have reached concerning that word or phrase against the rest of the Bible. Only when we find that the conclusion is in harmony with everything else the Bible teaches can we be sure that we are on the path of truth.

Red Letter Editions of the Bible

    We are currently besieged with Bibles called "Red Letter Editions," in which the words Jesus spoke are printed in red and the rest of the Bible is printed in black letters.
    Whatever the purpose of the publishing houses in printing these Red Letter Editions, the impact on the reader is devastating. The reader cannot help but think that the words Jesus spoke are more important than the other words because they are emphasized by red type and consequently set off from the rest of the Bible. Thus, the reader unconsciously adopts the principle that the Bible has two levels of authority: the first and most important being the words that Jesus spoke. The second level of authority would be everything else.
    This conclusion is contrary to the Bible and effectively undermines the authority of the Bible. The Bible declares that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, a word spoken by Paul or Isaiah or any of the men of God used to pen the Holy Scriptures has equal authority with the words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is wise to use Bibles that are printed only in black.

The Bible is One Truth

    Because God is the author, there is a marvelous oneness and cohesiveness throughout the Bible that makes it a joy to study and

contemplate. Words and phrases used in one book are to be studied in the light of words and phrases used elsewhere in the Bible.
    For example, the meaning of the Greek word kamno used by the Holy Spirit in James 5:15, is to be interpreted in light of its use in two other New Testament passages, Hebrews 12:3 and Revelation 2:3. In Hebrews 12:3, the word kamno is translated "wearied" and in Revelation 2:3, kamno is translated "faint," so the context clearly indicates that this word is related to spiritual weariness. No suggestion is offered that it relates to physical illness. Thus one can discover the meaning in the obscure passage, as James 5:15, by the use in the clearer passages.
    When we carefully read James 5:15, we discover that three blessings were experienced by the one who had been subject to kamno and they all relate to salvation: 1) he has become saved; 2) he has been raised up; 3) his sins have been forgiven. These three phrases relate to salvation. James 5:14 employs the Greek work astheneo, which is translated "sick" in our Bible, but we find by the use of the word astheneo in other places in the Bible that it can refer to any kind of spiritual or physical illness. Because God used the word kamno in verse 15 and not astheneo, we know that physical healing is not in view in this passage; the focus is on salvation.

Interpreting Scripture with Scripture Helps Us to Understand Matthew 12:36

    The statement in Matthew 12:36 can be easily misunderstood if we do not practice the principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture. In Matthew 12:36 Jesus lays down the principle that "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Does this mean that believers will have to give an account before God? By looking at the word "judgment" in light of everything else the Bible offers, we know that believers do not come into judgment. Let us see why this is so.
    The Greek word used in Matthew 12:36 and translated "judgment" in the King James Bible is the word krisis. This word is used in John 5:24, where Christ declares, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." The word translated "condemnation" is the word krisis, the same word used in

Matthew 12. Thus, we are assured that those who place their trust in Christ do not give an account before the judgment throne. To expand the thought, we know that the reason we do not come into judgment is that Christ became sin for those who place their trust in Him, and He has already been judged for those sins. Believers cannot be judged for sins that have been taken care of by our Savior. Effectively, believers have already stood before the judgment throne of God to answer for their sins. They did so in the person of Jesus Christ, who as their substitute, was laden with their sins, was found guilty of those sins, and was punished for those sins. The demands of the law of God recorded in II Corinthians 5:10 have been met by Christ on behalf of all those who believe on Him. This verse declares:

appearance of the New Testament writings. As a result, translators have a superbly accurate Bible from which to work.
    The task of the translator is to translate as faithfully as possible. It is an exacting and difficult job to be absolutely true to the original because languages are not parallel in structure or in meaning of individual words.
    Most words in the Bible have equivalent words in the language into which they are being translated. Most phrases in the original texts lend themselves to rather accurate translation without dropping or adding words. In the King James and American Standard versions, any words added by the translators to help work out the translation were italicized. This warns the reader that the italicized word is not found in the original language.
    Bibles are available in most of the major languages of the world. These Bibles are well translated and may consider them to be almost as infallible as the original texts. Because Hebrew and Greek texts are available for study and comparison, students of the Word can examine the original language to check the translators’ faithfulness. Young’s Analytical Concordance and Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance assist non-Greek and non-Hebrew students to study god’s use of individual words as found in the original language. Our Lord has certainly blessed us!

To Paraphrase or Not to Paraphrase

    It has been claimed that paraphrased editions of the Bible are valuable tools for effective evangelism. This claim is made by many who testify of its validity because someone became a Christian after reading a paraphrased edition.
    Is this conclusion valid? Has God guided men in our day to develop more readable Bibles so that His work of saving people will be assisted in the closing days of the earth’s existence? Or, instead of being a blessing, will the paraphrases prove to be sinful and God’s wrath will be poured out on the church for its audacious use of such books? These questions must be examined carefully and candidly for we are currently being besieged by paraphrased editions of the Bible.
    God is infinitely wise. He could have written the Bible simply, so that no one could misunderstand it. God did not intend to write the Bible to be always easily understood. It is true that some verses give

readily understood truth, but many verses which appear to be easily understood are actually difficult to grasp in their full meaning. The Bible declares in Proverbs 25:2, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
    In Proverbs 1:5-6 God informs us:

be the Sword of the Spirit which He will use to lead into all truth. As we humbly trust the Word of God, the Holy Spirit will slowly lead us to truth by His Word.
    In paraphrased editions, one senses the following attitude: A scribe has been given a message by the King. He is mandated to give the message to the populace. The scribe listens to the King’s message and realizes it is difficult to understand. He reasons that a better conveyance of truth would be simpler language. He receives the message, rewrites it in his own words, and gives it to the people. He fails to realize that the King, in perfect wisdom, gave the message exactly how he did with precise purpose in every word.
    The audacity, the temerity, the arrogance of this scribe! He did not deliver the King’s message; he made himself more authoritative and wiser than the King.
    This is what paraphrase translators and those who use them have done. They are insensitive to the nature and character of the Word they are communicating. They have lost their awareness of the holiness of God’s Word. They have forgotten that saving people is God’s work. Evangelists do not sell the Gospel; they do not snare people into salvation; they do not save people. The Christian is to faithfully witness from God’s Word as He has given it. It is God who applies His Word to the hearts of those who are to be saved. As the witness brings the Word, there is a clear line of demarcation between the Bible and the preaching. The Bible is infallible; the preaching may be open to question.
    The fact that someone becomes convicted of sin by reading a paraphrase is no rationale for its use. God spoke truth in the Bible through cursed Balaam (Numbers 23 and 24) and wicked Caiaphas (John11:49-52). He used a donkey to convey His Word (Numbers 22:28-30), but the sins of these men were not excused or covered. Today, too, God can use a statement that approximates His Word to accomplish salvation, but that does not excuse the sins of those who have lost their sensitivity to the holiness of God’s Word and substituted the work of man for God’s Word. God’s elective decree is that the one who was saved while reading a paraphrase would have been saved while reading the Bible.
    One might ask, are paraphrases helpful in any way? For example, do they render a useful service when used as a commentary?
    Unfortunately, our minds are not dependable. We may realize that the paraphrase is not the Bible, but subconsciously we accept its

statements as we accept the Bible, but it is not the Bible. The paraphraser rewrites a phrase (in his own words) according to what he believes is a logical a proper interpretation. If his understanding of the phrase is biblical, he will isolate on particular truth that God intended to be in the original phrase. However, rewriting sets aside he full depth of meaning that God intended to make available in the phrase. In other words, the Bible is emptied of much of its content. If the paraphraser interprets incorrectly, he presents as biblical truth that which is a lie. Because it is in a format which purports to be the Bible, the reader accepts a falsehood as truth. He clutters his mind with information which at best is merely part truth and at worst is altogether false. What Christian would dare to become a part of this kind of activity? The faithful and safe way to go is to reject paraphrases without delay.
    Rewriting the Bible in simple English (or paraphrasing in any language), will be considered sin by few people. Few read the Bible extensively or intensively. Few are ready to be obedient to what the Word declares. We live in the days prophesied by our Lord in Hosea 4:6: