![ist2_2999937_dictionary_definition_chocolate[1].jpg](/picture/ist2_2999937_dictionary_definition_chocolate[1].jpg?pictureId=731173&asGalleryImage=true)
Few things exasperate a Bible enthusiast more than to share a clearly worded scripture with someone only to be completely stumped by that person’s slick redefinition of certain words in the verse. Spirit, for example, doesn’t really mean spirit, man doesn’t mean man or God doesn’t even mean God. Words that are generally taken to mean one thing suddenly mean something else. Such shifty maneuvering often leaves an unsuspecting person who falls into the definition trap flustered and embarrassed.
The reason so many are vulnerable to this trap is because of an increasing aversion to “dry”, theological discussions. “Nobody cares about that stuff,” some say. But, those who loathe studying often stray into doctrinal error. In recent years, many Apostolics have coasted on the intensive Biblical scholarship of the pioneers. Now, aside from some “proof texts”, they struggle to defend or even discuss their beliefs.
Many systems of false doctrine base their success upon redefining scriptural terms. Their entire theologies frequently turn on highly specialized and often twisted definitions of key words. Once prospective converts accept the tortured definitions, they can be led into a radically different theological paradigm with relative ease. Either peddlers of false doctrine have limited training in principles of Biblical interpretation, or they disingenuously prey upon the untrained minds of others.
Apostolics must carefully examine all new ideas blown in on the winds of doctrine, especially those that deal with the person of Jesus Christ or with the doctrine of salvation. Current trends in “pop” religion, far-out strains from the religious fringe, old heresies in hip clothing or someone’s private interpretation may look good at first blush, but all of them are constructed upon faulty hermeneutics. Moreover, we must remember that every change in scriptural definitions ripples into profound implications for the entire body of scripture and doctrine. It is imperative to accurately define terms before embracing a novel doctrinal position.
Without getting into deep theology, there are a few principles in good textual interpretation that all students of the Bible ought to know.
Canon . The canon, or the accepted text of Genesis through Revelation (excluding the apocryphal books) form the basis of all true theology. A doctrinal idea must never force itself upon the text, but must be born out of the text itself.
Convention . Conventional definitions of terms always provide the best place to start. In most cases, words mean what they are normally taken to mean, unless overwhelming evidence exists to the contrary. This is also called the “common sense” method. When someone subjects a simple, ordinary word to a freakish or hybrid meaning, it should arouse suspicion.
Context . The same word can mean different things, but it depends upon the context. For example, when one reads the word wings in a verse concerning a bird, we have a reasonably good idea of its definition. When wings appears in a verse about God, however, the context suggests a very different meaning.
Consistency . Other things being equal, words should be defined the same way each time they appear in scripture. In most cases, only the context may permit a variant rendering. A capricious changing of a word in a key verse signals defective interpretation.
Original language . Those who appeal to the Greek and Hebrew to challenge Apostolic doctrine ought to cause red flags to go up everywhere. Many times pseudo-scholars look through the list of definitions of certain words found in a lexicon, and simply choose the one that best fits their views. Thus, a little knowledge truly is dangerous.
Highly specialized definitions of scriptural terms generally indicate a weak doctrinal position. The proponent may even claim that believing this hybrid interpretation is necessary for salvation. He knows that without a narrowly defined set of terms, his doctrine falls apart.
Erroneous definitions are extremely dangerous. They force error upon every verse in which the terms appear. As a result, all contradictory passages get dismissed as uninspired or mythical. They dramatically realign the Bible into a very different book.
The next time you’re faced with an unusual definition, ask yourself: Is it based upon Bible truth? Does it make common sense? Does it fit the surrounding scriptures? Is it based on consistent usage? Does the author have the academic credentials to appeal to the Greek or Hebrew? Proper definitions are critical to sound doctrine. Don’t fall into the definition trap.