Beware of the Greek Rookie (Case Studies)

Mar 15, 2024

Make sure to read the previous post. In today’s post I’ll give a few examples or case studies for your consideration.

“A man may begin preaching with a perfect knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew; but he will do little or no good among his hearers unless he knows something of the cross.” —J.C. Ryle

When it comes to biblical interpretation, the one thing standing in the way is ~|the flesh, our own unbelief|~. The problem is not Scripture but “us.” We are the problem. I have more to talk about this in a separate post.

In unbelief, we will run to and fro looking for teachers or interpretations that will tickle our ears. We will come up with unbiblical analogies and philosophy of man to explain away what’s clearly taught in Scripture.

Example 1

As we were discussing this question, he cited this verse, “No man can come to Me unless the Father draw him” (John 6:44), and he was interpreting it to mean “attract or woo.” And I quickly pointed to his attention something that I really didn’t think I needed to, since he was the New Testament scholar, and I’m not. I said, “What about the use of it in James 2 and Acts 16?” He granted that those texts did indeed use the more forcible interpretation of the verb and that the verb was capable of being translated “to drag.”
So I asked the question, “Then why are you insisting that ‘draw’ is less compelling than ‘drag’?” He said, “Because we have an instance of where this verb is used in the classical Greek language in a play by Euripides,” or something I had never heard of, and he said, “This is the verb the Greeks used when they ‘drew’ water out of a well.”
I was completely nonplussed—I had no idea of that particular usage. He said to me, “So you see, Professor Sproul, it’s perfectly legitimate to use the word ‘draw’ because nobody ‘drags’ water out of a well.” And the place broke up, you know, and I was embarrassed because I didn’t even know that occurred.
Then I said, “I grant that you don’t drag water out of a well, but sir, how do you get water out of a well? Do you stand up at the top of the well and say, ‘Here, water, water, water’? Do you woo water out of a well? Do you entice water out of a well, or must you do something that will compel that water to go against gravity and get it up there where you can use it?” And now they laughed at the other side, and we went on to another verse. —R.C. Sproul^[1]

The above emphasis is mine. Here is a perfect example of a New Testament scholar reading into the text.

Example 2

Emphasis is mine.

Those who support serpent-seed ideas cite many passages in the Bible as proof that their idea is correct. Almost without exception, these “proofs” require an interpretation that is totally inappropriate to the context of the passage. For example, Genesis 3:13 is often cited, with the claim that the word translated “beguiled” in the King James Version really meant “seduced.” Context and scholarship would disagree. Proverbs 30:20 metaphorically compares eating and sexual immorality; this is greatly overstated by the serpent-seed believer as proof that the Fall was sexual. Another passage is the parable of the tares in Matthew chapter 13. Those who believe in the serpent seed doctrine teach that Jesus’ description of the “children of the devil” in this parable is true in a biological sense. Again, only one who is trying to force this belief into the Bible will see it this way; it is not naturally read out of Scripture. —GotQuestions^[2]

The Serpent Seed doctrine is a perfect example of looking at the original language and picking whatever fits… If you look up for the word “beguiled” or “deceived” in Genesis 3:13, this is what you have:

h5377. נָשָׁא nâšâ’; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: — beguile, deceive, x greatly, x utterly.

And the rest is history. The fall was sexual… because “seduce” is the more better and accurate rendering of the word. So they say…

Example 3

Back when I was mapping out Christology, I found Michael Heiser’s lectures on the Trinity to be incredibly helpful. However, I disagree with him on some points, even though he is a renowned scholar in the Hebrew language.

Example 4

Above all Arminians insist that God is a good and loving God, who truly desires the salvation of all people. Note 1 Timothy 2:3–4: “This is good, and pleases God our savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; and 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Arminians regard these and similar passages of Scripture as clearly and unequivocally pointing to God’s universal desire for salvation of every person. The Greek of 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot be interpreted any other way than as referring to every person without limit. Some Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:4 (sic: 3:9) as referring only to the elect, but in light of 1 Timothy 2:4, that hardly works. (p. 68) — Roger Olson (Against Calvinism)

This is the first reference to our text in Olson’s book. It is also about as deep as the exegesis of this particular text is going to go. As you will notice, there isn’t any exegesis at all. Nothing about the context is discussed, nothing about the flow of thought or argument. Instead, we are given an argument from authority, and nothing more. I am unaware of what Roger Olson’s overwhelming expertise in the subject of Greek grammar is that would allow him to make such statements. I have never seen him cited as an expert in the field. And yet, he simply asserts that the Greek text “cannot be interpreted any other way than as referring to every person without limit.” Evidently, we must simply take his word for it! —James White

You can read that exchange here.

Example 5

This objection is from a Catholic, and took place many years ago when I was discussing 1 John 2:19.

The Greek term “went out” (https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/exerchomai.html) does not carry any connotation of apostasy in any of the biblical instances I’ve encountered. It is a general expression for ‘going out,’ making it unfounded to interpret it as implying apostasy. Please refer to the examples below.
John himself employs this term thrice in his Epistles, specifically in 1 John 2:19, 4:1, and 3 John 1:7. In the latter two instances, it is evident that the term refers to teachers or prophets going out to preach, not about them abandoning their faith (particularly in the case of 3 John). Additionally, Acts 15:24 presents a similar wording and language as 1 John 2:19, stating, “some persons have [gone out] from us and troubled you...although we gave them no instructions.” This further suggests that the expression denotes false teachers spreading error. Lastly, 2 John 1:7 uses a similar term, cautioning about “many deceivers have [gone out] into the world...such a one is the antichrist.” Combining these instances with both Greek and the Catholic principle of Scripture-interprets-Scripture, a compelling case is formed, asserting that “going out” is an idiomatic phrase for “going out to teach.” This interpretation does not directly address a person's salvation status.

The Catholic here is wrong and it would be too lengthy to fully cover it here. I’ll do so in a separate post in the future. For now, just note that the Catholic isn’t a Greek expert but decided to start there, allowing it to guide his reading of 1 John 2:19.

Conclusion

Back in 2022, I was in a discussion about Textual Criticism. The person tried to change the subject by pointing out the fact that I have no theological training. As if to say that I’m not qualified to discuss or ask questions. I wholeheartedly agreed with him that I’m not qualified, which is why I said that Textual Criticism isn’t my area of expertise. But this does not mean that I can’t ask questions and put 2 and 2 together. It does not mean that I can’t listen to arguments and weight them. It does not mean that I can’t search the Scripture daily to see if these things are so.

“Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and makes flesh his strength, whose heart [departs from the LORD].” —Jeremiah 17:5

The danger with academia is that our heart can easily be swayed to the left or right, departing from the Lord and His words if God is not at the forefront of all our thinking: “The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken, behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD; so what wisdom do they have?” (Jeremiah 8:9). Both Nicodemus and Paul were scholars, men of great learning, but they knew nothing until spiritual sights were given because the things of God are spiritually discerned.

“The God of Scripture can only be known by those to whom He makes Himself known. Nor is God known by the intellect. ‘God is Spirit’ (John 4:24), and therefore can only be known spiritually. But fallen man is not spiritual; he is carnal. He is dead to all that is spiritual. Unless he is born again, supernaturally brought from death unto life, miraculously translated out of darkness into light, he cannot even see the things of God (John 3:3), still less apprehend them (1 Corinthians 2:14).” —A.W. Pink

Reformed Soteriology

Discussion about this post