Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?

by Matt Flannagan

In our recent discussion on the Bible’s teachings on slavery John Loftus asked Madeleine, “if you were raped you should marry your rapist? Get real. … Would you want to be treated the way the Bible says women and slaves should be treated?” Loftus then dedicated a post on Debunking Christianity to Madeleine’s “stupidity” for her answer where he elaborated on his interpretation of various verses on the treatment of women in the comments section. 

 

Loftus is not alone in contending that the Bible teaches that rape victims had to marry their rapists. Michael Martin states that,

when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman’s rights and her psychological welfare are ignored.[15] For example: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29).” Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father’s property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught.[1] [sic]

Martin is not alone is making this claim, I often hear this claim brought up in dialogues and discussions with those skeptical of the Christian faith. Not long ago a correspondent cited that most medieval commentators taught, on the basis of Deut 22:28-29, that a woman who had been raped was commanded by God to marry her rapist. In particular he referred me to Maimonides who wrote, “by this prohibition a man is forbidden to divorce a woman whom he has raped.”[2] 

In this post I want to address this line of argument. My response is two-fold, first I will argue that Martin’s translation of Deuteronomy is mistaken, second, I will suggest that the medieval commentators my correspondent referred to actually utilised a different definition of rape to that used today. My conclusion will be that this law does not command a woman to marry her rapist; it rather commands men who have sex with women to follow their sexual advances up with marital commitment, and teaches that failure to do so is forbidden by God.

Martin’s Translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Martin cites Deut 22:28-29 as dealing with a situation where “a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her.” He immediately states, without argument, that this refers to acts of rape. Although he does not say, it appears this conclusion is based on the verb “seizes” in the English version he cites. Martin imports into this word the connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape. There are several problems with this claim.

First, and most obvious, the English word “seizes” is not in The Torah. The word in The Torah is tabas; in Hebrew, tabas “does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.”[3] While the word can refer to the capture of a city,[4] it is also used for “handling” the harp and flute,[5] the sword,[6] a sickle,[7] a shield,[8] oars or a bow,[9] “taking” God’s name[10] or dealing with the law of God.[11] The word simply means to “lay hold of,” “to take hold of something” or to “grasp it in hand.” The more formal King James translation interprets the passage as, “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her.”

Second, there are good reasons in this context for interpreting the word in a manner where it does not have a connotation of force or violence. Here I will mention three.

The first reason is that the context strongly suggests it. Had the author intended to refer to rape then he would have used the word chazak which does carry the connotations Martin plays on. This is reinforced by the fact that three verses earlier the author does refer to a rape. The law immediately preceding this one begins, “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her …” here the word used is chazak, which suggests a violent seizure is used. Bahsen notes, “Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply ‘take hold of’ her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25:25 (viz., rape).”[12]

The second reason is that Deut 22:28-29 actually repeats a law which has already been laid down in the book of Exodus. When one examines this law it is clear it does not refer to rape. The word “Deuteronomy” in Greek means “second law;” throughout the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeats laws already laid down in the book of Exodus, sometimes expanding on them. The Decalogue, for example, which was delivered on Sinai in Exodus 20, is repeated again in Deuteronomy 5. The laws about releasing an ebed (or indentured servant) in Exodus 21:1 are repeated and expanded on in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. The same occurs with the law under discussion. Gordon Wenham points out that that Deut 22:28-29 is a repetition of a law spelled out in Exodus 22:15, which states “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”[13] Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or “bride-price” to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children. What is important, however, is that we are left in no doubt that in Exodus 22:15 the case deals, not with rape, but with what was traditionally called seduction.

The third reason is that, to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command. Martin is correct, given what we know about the psychological harm that rape inflicts upon its victims to command that a woman marry her rapist is cruel and hence clashes with strong moral intuitions. Elsewhere I have defended the claim that if one interpretation of divine commands coheres better with our moral intuitions than another then that fact constitutes evidence for the former interpretation. All else being equal, an interpretation that coheres with our pre-theoretical moral intuitions is always preferable. This hermeneutical principle applies here.

The passage then does not refer to a rape. The Hebrew word does not, by itself, indicate rape and interpreting it this way both ignores the context where the word chazak is used to designate a rape. It also makes the second law inconsistent with the exposition of the same law in Exodus 22:15 and also with our prior moral discernment about what is right and wrong. Seduction, however, is consistent with the meaning of tabas, the context it is used in, the original law it was derived from and it coheres with our moral intuitions. These factors, to me, provide decisive reasons for rejecting Martin’s interpretation.

It is worth noting that the fact that this passage refers to a seduction and not rape is really not news. Bahnsen notes that, “one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape;”[15] he lists several,

Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: “. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).

In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).
James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).[16]

Hence a skeptic who was interested in what the passage actually says could easily have discovered what I have noted by consulting a commentary. 

Medieval Commentators
If many post enlightenment and modern commentators realise that this passage is about a seduction and not a rape how does one explain the fact, alluded to above, that many medieval commentators apparently interpreted the passage to refer to rape? Here one needs to be attentive to the fact that words change their meaning over time. Medieval writers utilised a wider definition of rape than modern people do. In the middle ages the word ‘rape’ could include not only what we call rape today but also what was called “seduction,” where a man seduces a virgin he is not married to with her consent.

Isidore De Seville, for example, stated “seduction [stuprum], or rape, properly speaking, is unlawful intercourse, and takes its name from its causing corruption: wherefore he that is guilty of rape is a seducer.”[17] Similarly, Thomas Aquinas wrote,

They [rape and seduction] coincide when a man employs force in order unlawfully to violate a virgin. This force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from her father’s house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents’ house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape remain no matter how force is employed.[18]

Hence it is not entirely accurate to read the word “rape” in Medieval commentaries as we understand it today.

In conclusion then, it is very doubtful that Deut 22:28-29 commands women who have been raped to marry their rapists.

To continue reading, click here

Resources on the Same Sex Marriage question

Discussing Same-Sex Marriage (Audio) – "How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show."

Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses – "Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments."

What Is Marriage? – "One of the smartest men I know of, Robert P. George from Princeton University, with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson have written an argument for the traditional definition of marriage. You can download the PDF and digest it."

Denying Same-sex Marriage Isn't Unequal Protection – "An Iowa court recently ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who claimed that denying them the right to marry violates the equal protection clause. This argument seems reasonable at first. Straight people can marry. Gays cannot. This is not equal protection. A little reflection, however, reveals how this view is mistaken.''

Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 – "Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a relevant characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there's no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more ramifications when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage."

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights – "One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue. Here's the approach I usually take…"

Liberal Support for Traditional Marriage – "This self-described liberal Democrat supports California's Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman because, as the piece so well explains, marriage, as a societal institution recognized by government, is about children."

Answering a Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Video) – Alan Schlemon responds to Zach Wahls's video promoting same-sex marriage.

Marriage Is a Social Construction. - "What is marriage?  There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question:  Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not.  If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times."

Marriage Is about Love - “As long as people love each other,” one person asserted, “it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”

When the Bride Is a Groom This article was written in 1999 - "The goal is to remove any hint of social stigma attached to homosexuality. One way to accomplish that is to depict all moral concern about the issue as malice. If you think the behavior is wrong, then you're guilty of spreading hatred."

You Can't Marry Your Canary - "Restricting the definition of marriage is not inappropriate discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word, discrimination, doesn't even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman."

Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates - "There’s no principled way to exclude polyamory from marriage, if one adopts the principles being argued by same-sex marriage advocates."

Same Sex Marriage Arguments  - "The real issue is whether or not marriage is a right. It's not. It's nor more a right than a drivers' license is a right. As far as goverment's recognition of marriage, there is no right to either on. They're civil arrangements that the goverment has an interest in."

Is Denying Same-sex Marriage Like Denying Interracial Marriage? - "Let me be blunt: denying same-sex couples from marriage is not the same as denying interracial couples from it. Although anti-miscegenation laws were immoral, the same mistake is not happening today. And despite the rhetorical force of making the comparison, merely claiming it’s the same does not make it so."

Forbidding "Gay Marriage"  - "Marriage seems to be something in particular, not something we can twist any way we want."

Gay Is Not The New Black  - "The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be."

Tactics for Defending Traditional Marriage - "Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

A Secular Case Against Same Sex Marriage  - An argument using statistics and facts to show why same sex marriage is not good for society.

Gay Is Not The New Black

by Voddie Baucham

It's hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex "marriage" is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual "marriage" and civil rights is Michael Gross's article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."¹ Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, "Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable."²

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied:

Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."³

Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation---like a person's race or gender---does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.⁴ (emphasis added)

The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

Unidentifiable Minority

The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.⁵

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.⁶

Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn't enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGS⁷ in college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn't a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn't Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

But this isn't the only problem with the civil rights angle.

Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?⁸

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,⁹ along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

Unsustainable Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?¹⁰ What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?¹¹ Where do we stop, and on what basis?

Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy cited his 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.¹²

I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law.¹³ (emphasis added)

Inescapable Confrontation

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (Gen 1:27-28), the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.

Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.

To continue reading, click here

263 Theological Questions and Answers

This is a complete list of all the videos available from The Theology Program. For those who can't attend seminary, this is a fantastic FREE resource from Credo House Ministries to get a very solid grounding in theology. If you ever find yourself sitting around saying "I'm bored", you no longer have a valid excuse!

Most simply put, The Theology Program (TTP) is on a mission to reclaim the mind for Christ by equipping people, churches, and pastors, to understand and articulate the Christian faith.

The Theology Program is a program of Christian theology (study of God) and apologetics (defending the faith) created with all believers in mind. TTP seeks to give people who may never have the time, ability, or circumstances that allow them to attend full-time seminary the same opportunity to study the great and rich Christian heritage of truth. Here, you will learn theology historically, biblically, and irenically (in a peaceful manner). The contents of TTP are created from a broadly evangelical perspective, engaging other traditions in a persuasive yet gracious manner. In short, we seek to help people think theologically by understanding what they believe and why they believe it.

We believe that all people are created in the image of God and therefore able and desirous to engage in a deep level of theological training that has traditionally only been offered at seminaries. TTP courses are designed with you in mind, walking you step by step through this comprehensive program.

If you have ever asked these questions, then this is the program for you:

• » How do we know what books belong in the Bible?
• » Do all religions lead to God?
• » So many churches—what is the big difference?
• » Why does everyone seem to interpret the Bible differently?
• » The doctrine of the Trinity—can someone please explain this?
• » Why should I study theology?
• » So many versions of the Bible… Which one do I use?
• » What about those who have never heard about Christ, can they still make it to
  heaven?
• » Why does God allow bad things to happen?
• » What is the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics?
• » Can we be sure that Christ rose from the grave?

Michael Patton is the director and primary teacher of this excellent 6 course program.  The program materials Michael has created are of the highest quality being endorsed by the likes of Chuck Swindoll and J.P. Moreland. We invite you to join the thousands of churches individuals who have already been equipped through The Theology Program.

I’M READY TO START THE THEOLOGY PROGRAM! 

General Questions about Theology
(Prolegomena)
Workbook - Click here

1. What is theology?
2. Who is a theologian?
3. What is Tabloid Theology?
4. What is Folk Theology?
5. What are the other ways people “do” theology?
6. What are the different categories of theology?
7. What are the categories of systematic theology?
8. What is biblical, historical, philosophical, creedal, and apologetic theology?
9. How does one “do” theology right?
10. Why are there so many different theologies out there?
11. What is the study of the way people come to know truth?
12. What is the difference in relative truth and objective truth?
13. What is Postmodernism?
14. Where did Postmodernism come from?
15. What are the key characteristics of Postmodernism?
16. What difficult questions was the church challenged by with moderns?
17. What difficult questions is the church challenged by with postmoderns?
18. What is the basic difference between modernism and postmodernism?
19. What is the modern view of truth?
20. What is the postmodern view of truth?
21. What is the Christian view of truth?
22. What truths are relative and what truths are objective?
23. What truths are relative?
24. What truths are objective?
25. What truths are essential for a believer to hold to be considered orthodox?
26. How certain should we be about our beliefs?
27. What is the “big picture” difference between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism?
28. How do Protestants view Church History?
29. How do Roman Catholics view Church History?
30. How do Eastern Orthodox view Church History?
31. Why are there so many Protestant denominations?
32. Where do we go for truth?
33. How do the various Christian traditions view truth? Part 1
34. How do the various Christian traditions view truth? Part 2
35. How do my traditions, reason, experiences, and general revelation contribute to my theology?
36. What do emotions and special revelation contribute to my theology?
37. Does God still speak today?
38. Why do some people believe that God still speaks today?
39. Why do some people say that God does not speak through prophets today? Part 1
40. Why do some people say that God does not speak through prophets today? Part 2
41. What is the Soft Cessationist view of prophecy?
42. Can we have unity and diversity in the Church? Part 1
43. Can we have unity and diversity in the Church? Part 2
44. How do we do theology in our culture today?
45. How do Christian traditions have unity and diversity?

Questions about Authority and the Bible
(Bibliology)
Workbook - Click here

1. Who do we trust for Christian authority?
2. What is Tradition?
3. What are the five main view for Christian authority?
4. Is the Scripture all we need?
5. What are the arguments for Sola Ecclesia (the Roman Catholic view of authority in the Church)?
6. What are the arguments against Sola Ecclesia (the Roman Catholic view of authority in the Church)? Part 1
7. What are the arguments against Sola Ecclesia (the Roman Catholic view of authority in the Church)? Part 2
8. Is the Bible alone the only infallible source for authority (sola Scriptura)?
9. Has the text of Scripture changed since it was first written?
10. How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? Part 1
11. How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? Part 2
12. How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? Part 3
13. How accurate are Scriptures?
14. Do we have the right books?
15. What are the facts concerning the canon?
16. What are the tests of canonicity?
17. What are the arguments for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books of the Roman Catholic Bible?
18. What are the argumentsagainst the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books of the Roman Catholic Bible?
19. What is the Old Testament canon?
20. How were the New Testament books decided upon? Part 1
21. How were the New Testament books decided upon? Part 2
22. How were the New Testament books decided upon? Part 3
23. What is the doctrine of inspiration?
24. What is the biblical view of inspiration?
25. What are the different theories of inspiration?
26. How does inspiration occur?
27. What is the most common mistake that evangelicals make with regard to their understanding of the inspiration of the Scriptures?
28. How do we know the Bible is inspired?
29. What is the internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 1
30. What is the internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 2
31. What is the external evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 1
32. What is the external evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 2
33. Does the Bible err?
34. How is inerrancy different from infallibility?
35. Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy
36. What are the objections and responses to inerrancy?
37. What about all the “contradictions” in the Bible?
38. How have people historically interpreted Scripture?
39. How did the Rabbis interpret the Old Testament in Christ’s day?
40. How did the Apostles interpret the Old Testament?
41. How did the early Church interpret Scripture?
42. How did people interpret Scripture during the medieval period?
43. How did the Reformers interpret Scripture?
44. What is the modern way of interpreting Scripture?
45. What are the basic principles of biblical interpretation?
46. What are some common interpretative fallacies?

Questions about God
(Theology Proper)
Workbook - Click here

1. What is a worldview?
2. What is a theistic worldview?
3. What are deistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic worldviews?
4. What are polytheistic, naturalistic, and pluralistic worldviews?
5. Can finite humans understand the infinite God?
6. Is human language adequate to describe God?
7. Why do people object to the study of God’s existence? Part 1
8. Why do people object to the study of God’s existence? Part 2
9. Why do people object to the study of God’s existence? Part 3
10. Can we prove that God exists?
11. What are the arguments against the existence of God?
12. What are the arguments for the existence of God? Part 1
13. What are the argumentsfor the existence of God? Part 2
14. What makes God, God?
15. How is simplicity an attribute of God?
16. How is the simplicity of God to be defined?
17. What are the objections to simplicity?
18. How is eternality an attribute of God?
19. How is immutability an attribute of God?
20. What are the objections to immutability?
21. How is omnipresence and attribute of God?
22. What is the doctrine of aseity?
23. How is omniscience and attribute of God?
24. How is omnipotence an attribute of God?
25. How is sovereignty an attribute of God?
26. Other communicable attributes of God?
27. An evaluation of Openess Theology?
28. How did the early church understand the Trinity?
29. What are the early Trinitarian heresies? Part 1
30. What are the early Trinitarian heresies? Part 2
31. What is the importance of the ecumenical councils?
32. What are some of the difficulties in communicating the doctrine of the Trinity?
33. Does the Bible teach the Trinity?
34. What does the Old Testament say about the oneness of God?
35. What does the New Testament say about the oneness of God?
36. Is Jesus God?
37. Did Jesus ever claim to be God?
38. Is the Holy Spirit God?

Questions about Christ
(Christology)

1. How did the early Church understand the humanity of Christ?
2. What is Apollinarianism?
3. What is Nestorianism?
4. What is Monophysitism?
5. How did the Council of Chalcedon affect Christology?
6. What are the different interpretations of Chalcedon?
7. What do the Scriptures say about the humanity of Christ?
8. Why was Christ born of a virgin?
9. What does it mean that Christ “emptied Himself”?
10. Was Christ able to sin?

Questions about Humanity and Sin
(Anthropology and Harmartiology)
Workbook - Click here

1. What is Anthropology?
2. Why did God create man? Part 1
3. Why did God create man?, Part 2
4. What is our essential nature?
5. What is Monism?
6. What is Trichotomy?
7. What is the constitution of man?
8. What is the response to trichotomy?
9. What is dichotomy?
10. What is conditional unity?
11. What is Gnostic dualism?
12. What are the negative effects of Gnosticism?
13. When and how was our soul created? Part 1
14. When and how was our soul created? Part 2
15. What does it mean that we are in the image of God?
16. What else does it mean to be created in the image of God?
17. What are the aspects of the image of God within man?
18. How did the Fall affect the imago dei?
19. How far did we fall?
20. What does Scripture say about the Fall? Part 1
21. What does Scripture say about the Fall? Part 2
22. What are the different types of sin?
23. What is Pelagianism?
24. What is Augustinianism?
25. What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? Part 1
26. What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? Part 2
27. What is the Arminian view of Original Sin?
28. What is Original Sin?
29. Is there such a thing as Free Will? Part 1
30. What are the different positions on Free Will?
31. What are the different Free Will views of responsibility?
32. What are the problems with the different views of Free Will?
33. Is there such a thing as Free Will? Part 2
34. What is the theological difference between men and women?
35. What are the two main theological positions on the difference between men and women?
36. What is the Egalitarian view?
37. What is the response to Egalitarianism?
38. What is Complementarianism?
39. What is the defense of Complementarianism? Part 1
40. What is the defense of Complementarianism? Part 2
41. What is the response to Complementarianism?

Questions about Salvation
(Soteriology)
Workbook - Click here

1. What does it mean to be “saved”?
2. What is salvation?
3. What is the process of salvation (ordo salutis)?
4. How do various Christian traditions view salvation differently?
5. What does it mean to be predestined?
6. What is the doctrine of election?
7. What is a defense of unconditional election?
8. Is election conditioned upon my choice?
9. What is a defense of conditional election?
10. What are the arguments against conditional election?
11. Is predestination fair?
12. Does God predestine people to Hell?
13. Why did Christ die on the Cross?
14. What is the Recapitulation theory of the Atonement? Part 1
15. What is the Recapitulation theory of the Atonement? Part 2
16. What is the Ransom to Satan Theory of the Atonement?
17. What is the Satisfaction Theory of the atonement?
18. What is the Moral Example Theory of the atonement?
19. What is the Governmental Theory of the atonement?
20. What is the Substitution Theory of the atonement?
21. For whom did Christ die?
22. Can we say “no” to the Gospel?
23. What does “born again” mean?
24. Does regeneration precede faith?
25. What does it mean to have faith?
26. What does it mean to repent?
27. Can someone be saved without repenting?
28. What does one ultimately have to do to be saved?
29. How is a person justified before God?
30. What is the Eastern/Greek Orthodox view of justification?
31. What is the Roman Catholic view of justification?
32. What is the Protestant view of justification?
33. How does one become a better Christian?
34. What are the basic principles of sanctification?
35. Can a believer lose their salvation?
36. What are the arguments of those who say you can lose your salvation?
37. What are the arguments of those who say you cannot lose your savation?

Questions about the Church
(Ecclesiology) 
Workbook - Click here

1. What is the story of Christianity?
2. What is the Church?
3. What is the nature of the Church?
4. How do the various traditions view the nature of the Church differently?
5. What is the Dispensational and Replacement views of the Church?
6. What is the relationship between the Church and Israel?
7. What is Replacement Theology?
8. What is Classic Dispensationalism?
9. A defense of Classic Dispensationalism
10. What is Progressive Dispensationalism?
11. What is Progressive Covenantalism?
12. What is the difference between Israel and the Church?
13. What is the purpose of the Church? Part 1
14. What is the purpose of the Church? Part 2
15. Why is the Church here and not in heaven?
16. What purposes are limited to those that can be accomplished only on the earth?
17. What are the ministries of the Church?
18. What ministries does your local church have?
19. What constitutes a local church? Part 1
20. What constitutes a local church? Part 2
21. What constitutes a local church? Part 3
22. What is worship, teaching, fellowship, evangelistic outreach, and in-reach?
23. What is an ordinance/sacrament? Part 1
24. What is an ordinance/sacrament? Part 2
25. What is baptism?
26. What is the Lord’s Supper?
27. How is the Church equipped to accomplish its ministry?
28. What are the different views of spiritual gifts?
29. What are spiritual gifts?
30. How many spiritual gifts are there? Part 1
31. How many spiritual gifts are there? Part 2
32. What are the marks of a false church? Part 1
33. What are the marks of a false church? Part 2
34. What are different models of church government?
35. How should the church organize its government? Part 1
36. How should the church organize its government? Part 2

Questions about the End Times
(Eschatology)
Use link above from Ecclesiology for the Eschatology workbook

1. What is eschatology?
2. What are the different views of the millennium?
3. What are the arguments for postmillennialism?
4. What are the arguments for amillennialism?
5. What are the arguments for premillennialism?
6. What are the different views of the rapture?
7. What is the pre-tribulational view?
8. What is the mid-tribulational view?
9. What is the post-tribulational view?
10. Questions about Heaven and Hell

Silly Putty Bible Study

Many Christians treat the Bible like putty. Just add the Spirit, and it can be molded into almost anything at all..

By Greg Koukl

Quick Summary:  A Moment of Truth

• Evangelicals have developed a dangerous habit of looking for verses or isolated phrases in their Bibles that they think the Spirit “impresses” on them with personal messages foreign to the original context.
• Experiences like these are powerful, but deeply relativistic and unbiblical.
• The Bible teaches that God chose specific words to communicate precise meanings. Private interpretations do not yield those accurate meanings. 
• Instead, we are to study to get the correct sense of a passage, then guard and protect that truth from distortion and abuse.
• God’s Word is alive, but His words do not have a life of their own. There is no power when God’s words are twisted, distorted, or adulterated for our private use.  There are no private messages in the Bible.

21^st Century kids have cell phones, DVD players, and video games.  When I was a kid we had simpler delights.  One was a handful of malleable goo that could be pulled, twisted, or distorted into any shape imaginable.  It was called Silly Putty®. 

Sadly, many Christians use their Bibles like Silly Putty. Just add the Spirit and the Bible becomes putty in their hands, able to be molded into almost anything at all.  Often, the results turn out to be silly, too, and sometimes even tragic.

The Holy Spirit Give-Away 

Some Evangelicals have developed a dangerous habit:  They use the Bible to find a personal “promise” or “word” of guidance from the Spirit unrelated to the text’s original meaning rather than as a treasure of truth of all.

Here’s how it works.  Instead of studying to find legitimate personal application of Scripture to their lives, they read the Bible looking for verses or isolated phrases the Spirit “impresses” on them with personal messages foreign to the context.

For example, a Christian woman who has been praying for her family’s conversion stumbles upon Acts 16 during her quiet time.  Her eyes settle on Paul’s response to the Philippian jailer who asked, “What must I do to be saved?” “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved,” Paul answered, then added “you and your household” (v. 29-31).

Encouraged by these words, the woman begins to claim the “promise” that her own household will be saved, with the justification that “The Holy Spirit gave me this verse.”

Why would she use wording like that?  Because the verse wasn’t  hers to begin with.[i]  Rather, she believes, under the Spirit’s influence there is a mystical transformation that takes place causing the meanings of the words to change for her, conveying a private message not intended for anyone else.

Notice, her confidence is not based on the objective meaning of the text, but on the unique subjective meaning given to her by the Spirit in the moment.  I—or any other Christian, for that matter—could not claim that verse for myself unless the Holy Spirit “gave” the verse to me, too.[ii]

Experiences like these are powerful because they seem intensely personal.  But there’s a problem:  Acts 16:31 is not her promise.  It’s the Philippian jailer’s promise, if it’s a promise at all.[iii]  This is an abuse of God’s Word.  It’s also deeply relativistic.

When an objective claim (a verse) communicates completely different meanings (“truths”) to different subjects (people), that’s relativism.  Since truth is not in the objective meaning of the words, but in the personal, subjective experience of the reader—in this case, an experience with the Holy Spirit—a personal prompting can be “true for me, but not for you.”  Since there are different experiences for different people, there are different “truths” for each.

Relativism is the defining characteristic of the age, and has deeply influenced the church.  Therefore, let me speak plainly:  There is no biblical justification for finding private, personal messages from texts originally intended by God to mean something else.  This approach is the wrong way to read the Bible.  I know because of what the Bible teaches about itself.

The Bible on Bible Study

First, the Bible teaches that the written words of Scripture are inspired.  

“All scripture [graphe, Gr.—the “writing”] is inspired by God” ( 2 Timothy 3:16). The wording here is important.  Paul says that the writing itself is “God breathed,” not the thoughts, impressions, or private messages that occur to us when we read the writing.

God told Moses to speak to Pharaoh the specific words of God: “I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say” (Exodus 4:12). “Let them hear my words,” God said later at Horeb, “so they may learn to fear me all the days they live on the earth” (Deuteronomy 4:10). These are the “living words” that Stephen said have been passed on to us (Acts 7:38).

God told Jeremiah, “Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you” (Jeremiah 30:2).  He said to Isaiah, “My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring” (Isaiah 59:21).

God has always been concerned with the words, because He chose specific words to convey precise meaning.  That’s why Paul confidently refers to revelation not as words of human wisdom, but as “words…taught by the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 213).


Second, the Bible teaches it is important to accurately understand these inspired words of Scripture.

Note Jesus in Luke 10:25-28 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”  And He said to him, “What is written in the Law?  How does it read to you?”  And he answered and said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”  And He said to him, “You have answered correctly.”

Jesus did not ask, “What does the Spirit say to you on this issue?” He asked, “What is written?  How does it read?”  Then He waited to see if the lawyer got it right.

There is a correct and incorrect way to read the Bible.  Paul tells Timothy to handle the Word accurately to avoid bringing shame on himself (2 Timothy 2:15).  Jesus scolded the Pharisees for not understanding the Scripture properly.  He then made an argument for the resurrection that hinged on the tense of a word: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  He is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:29-32).

Third, the Bible teaches that private interpretations do not yield the accurate meaning. 

Peter is clear on this point.  He writes: 

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Because there is a Divine author behind prophesy, the Apostle argues, there is a particular truth—a determinate meaning—God intends to convey.  Individual, personalized interpretations that distort this meaning only bring danger (note the reference to false prophets and false teachers in the next verse).

The same reasoning applies to all Scripture, not just to words of prophets, because the same rationale applies—the same Divine author stands behind the entire Bible.[iv]  The meaning God originally intended through the inspired writers is the same meaning for anyone reading the verse today. 

Simply put, a text can never mean what it never meant.[v]  Whenever God speaks, He has a particular truth in mind that fanciful interpretations obscure.  We are not free to extract our own personalized revelations from Scripture. The Holy Spirit did not mean one thing when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, for example, and then something entirely different when we read it 2000 years later.  There are no private messages in the Bible.

Fourth, the Bible teaches we are to be diligent in study to get the accurate meaning.

The “good hand of the Lord” was upon Ezra specifically because Ezra “had set his heart to study the law of the Lord” (Ezra 7:9-10).  The New Testament Bereans were called noble precisely because they went back to the words of the text, “examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

In Paul’s last words before his death he admonished Timothy to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). 

He warned of a time when the church “will not endure sound doctrine,” but instead will turn to “myths” that “tickle” the ears (2 Timothy 4:3).  Truth is the antidote, he said, preached faithfully and accurately.  Success in this depends on diligent work, not on “hearing” from the Spirit. 

Fifth, the Bible teaches we must guard the accurate meaning from being distorted, twisted, or maligned.  This is clear from a number of passages.  Jude writes (1:3):

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Paul assured the Corinthians that he was “not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God” (2 Corinthians 4:2).  By contrast, Peter warned that the “untaught and unstable” who distorted Paul’s words did so “to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

Anticipating his imminent martyrdom, Paul tells Timothy, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me….Guard…the treasure which has been entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

Do you realize you cannot distort something unless it has a specific, correct meaning that can be twisted?  You cannot retain the standard of sound words unless the words are the standard.  You cannot contend for the same sound doctrine for everyone that protects us from myths— a “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”— if each individual receives his own personal message from the text.

Finally, the Bible never teaches the subjective, individualized interpretation approach.

Where does Scripture advance the idea that the Holy Spirit changes the meanings of the words of the text for individual readers?  Where does the Bible teach that private messages lurk between lines wanting only the Holy Spirit’s touch to bring them to light?  Where does God’s Word suggest the relativistic, take-the-verse-out-of-context-for-my-own-private-use approach?  It’s not there.

If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be God because He chose to communicate through language, not around it.  God will not twist, distort, or redefine His own Word for our private consumption.

“We cannot make [the Bible] mean anything that pleases us, and then give the Holy Spirit ‘credit’ for it,” Gordon Fee wrote.  “The Holy Spirit cannot be called in to contradict Himself, and He is the one who inspired the original intent.”[vi]

The Bible speaks clearly on this question.  The written words of Scripture are God-breathed, chosen specifically by the Holy Spirit for their precision.  There is a correct way to read them and an incorrect way.  Private interpretations do not yield accurate meanings.  Instead, diligent study and careful examination of the text deliver to us unadulterated truth, a treasure we are to guard and protect from shameful distortion and abuse.

The OT in the NT

How is it, then, that Old Testament verses cited by New Testament writers sometimes seem so far removed from their original context?  This is a fair question to which there are a couple of explanations, depending on the citation.  Most hinge on our core principle:  Meaning is always based on the author’s intent.

Since the principle author of Scripture is God, He may have intended more than the Old Testament authors were aware of and may clarify His original meaning in subsequent writings.

God may have intended multiple meanings or multiple levels of meaning (e.g., double entendre), or an immediate literal sense and an additional spiritual sense (e.g., prophecy and apocalyptic literature).  The New Testament writers have insight into these meanings that we do not.

There are other possibilities.  Sometimes a writer notes that a type—a divinely inspired pattern or symbol—is being “fulfilled,” and not the words themselves; God’s history sometimes repeats itself (e.g., Jeremiah 31:15 vs. Matthew 2:17-18).

A later author may not be finding new meaning in a text, but giving new meaning to it. For us, then, the question is what did Matthew mean in his use of Hosea (for example), not what Hosea originally meant. 

In no case, however, are New Testament authors relativizing the text for their own private use.  Rather, they are revealing formerly hidden objective meanings in the text, something implicit they then made explicit for application to the whole community of Christians.  This is critical since I have been arguing that God does not take verses out of context as a means of conveying private messages to individual readers.

No Power in Words

Christians err in thinking the words of Scripture are somehow vested with power.  Just speak the words—“claim the verse”—and power is released to serve us.  This is not so.

God’s Word is alive, but His words do not have a life of their own. That’s an occult view of language, not a biblical one. There is no power in words themselves. There is only power in God, in whose mind the words originate.  Therefore, the words are only alive in their original intent.

God’s Word only has power when used as God purposed.  There is no power when God’s words are twisted, distorted, or adulterated for our private use.  We cannot claim divine authority for a verse when we are using it in a way that God did not intend.  This is not Christianity.  It’s superstition.

Anyone teaching the Bible out of context, therefore, is not teaching the Bible, regardless of how much they “baptize” their inventions with Holy Spirit language.  A reflection on a Bible passage in a morning quiet time, a devotional reading, or a Sunday sermon may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. But if it’s not the message of the text—God’s message—it lacks power even when it’s quoted chapter and verse.

Whether claiming promises during difficult times or citing verses to substantiate a view, make sure the texts you use to prove your point actually mean what you think they mean. 

Always be on the alert when reading books or listening to sermons.  Are the authors or speakers simply quoting verses to buttress their points, or are they interpreting the Scripture carefully by looking at the details of the text?

Misconstruing a passage neutralizes the Word of God.  It robs Scripture of its authority and influence. The entire reason we go to the Bible in the first place—to get God’s truth and apply it to our lives—is thwarted when we ignore the context.

Simply “claiming” a verse doesn’t make it our own.  Only when we are properly informed by God’s Word the way it was written—in its context—can we be transformed by it.  Every piece becomes powerful when it is working together according to the Spirit’s design

The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17).  Used properly, it parries deception and pierces the heart.  It protects us with its truth.  A sword made of putty, though, has no power.  It pierces nothing.  It offers no protection.  And it has no place in the arsenal of a Christian.

Putting Your Knowledge into Action

• First, don’t look for private messages in the Bible. They’re not there.  Do not “claim” verses that are not intended for you or your circumstances.

To continue reading, click here