02.11. Exegesis Of Scripture Proves Impeccability

11. EXEGESIS OF SCRIPTURE PROVES IMPECCABILITY

Anyone who gives a correct exegesis of any passage of Scripture will find that his interpretation will agree in principle with everyone else who does the same. An exegete is one who disregards subjectivism and relies on the objective truth
in the passage according to its grammatical construction. The grammatical construction of the Biblical text never changes. But ideas formed subjectively change with every “gut feeling,” an expression often heard in our generation. On the other hand, when anyone reads into a passage a meaning which the text will not grammatically allow, it is called eisigesis. An eisigete is one who is either filled with prejudice or follows his “gut feeling.” This is subjectivism.

Paul said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The word for “prove” is present active imperative of the verb dokimadzo, which means to prove by trial, to examine or scrutinize, or to approve after trial by discernment. The Greek word was derived from the testing of metals. Thus, it not only means to test but also carries the idea of approving as a result of the test. However, testing is insufficient unless that which is approved is embraced and maintained.

There is only one effective way to arrive at the truth. David said that God will teach the “meek.” “The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way” (Psalms 25:9). The word “meek” carries the idea of humility. The meek or humble prefer suffering wrong to doing wrong. There are two Hebrew words for meekness, one applying to those who patiently suffer without resistance and the other to those who willingly endure with submission what they might escape. Meekness is not weakness. It comes with the knowledge of one’s total dependence upon God. The elect have something to learn, and God has something to teach them. Therefore, the humble person alone is teachable. Christians need to know the difference between passive and meek church members. Those who are merely passive are passive not only to Biblical principles but to putting into practice those to which they have been subjected.

Realization that God is the Teacher eliminates pride. Man’s intelligence has assumed a superb confidence in itself, thinking it can solve all problems and surmount all obstacles. Manifesting humility is not in the power of such ignorance because true humility is the fruit of Divine grace. In fact, such ignorance nourishes pride. One who possesses grace has no problem understanding that pride is a manifestation of lack of knowledge. The degree of pride is determined by the degree of destitution of knowledge. The ignorance under discussion is not academic but spiritual. The meek person recognizes that truth is both personal and purposeful. It is not only for us but will have an effect on us. This is the reason the Christian goes from faith to faith, strength to strength, and glory to glory. Thus, “...the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Proverbs 4:18).

Temptation is not a synonym for trial, although both come from the same Greek word. A synonym is a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another. Although the Greek verb peiradzo means, according to Greek lexicons, to test, to try, or to tempt, to test cannot be used as a synonym for to tempt in certain cases. The difference between the two is too great, as James 1:2; James 1:12-14 prove. Some may think this writer is laboring to prove a point, but before this discourse is completed the student of Scripture will see the value of such scrutiny. A diligent study of the noun peirasmos and the verb peiradzo is needed because of the way they are used in their translations. Even those who believe and teach that Christ could not sin use the terms “temptation” and “trial” indiscriminately. In many works on Christology, one will find such statements as “Christ could not be tempted because God cannot be tempted.” The same writer may discuss the purpose of Jesus Christ being subjected to the “testings” of Satan. Following this, one may come to reasons why Christ was “tempted.” Such reasons as the incarnation, humiliation, and being able to sympathize with His own who are being tempted are discussed. The writer can sympathize with those who use the terms of “temptation” and “trial” indiscriminately. He, too, has done the same thing. However, after a diligent study of James 1:2-15, the writer saw the need for making a study of the Greek noun peirasmos and the verb peiradzo in every passage where they are used in the New Testament. After such a study, one cannot help seeing the difference between the terms “temptation” and “trial.” Although the writer has never believed Christ was peccable, he has taught that Christ’s temptability does not imply susceptibility. A deeper study into the subject shows one that Christ was not tempted. The verb peiradzo is used in the sense of either to try or test or to solicit someone to do wrong. This verb is used 39 times in the New Testament. In 31
of the 39 times, it is translated “tempted,” “to be tempted,” “tempting,” and “tempt.” In the other eight references, it is translated “prove” (John 6:6), “assayed” (Acts 16:7), “hath gone about” (Acts 24:6), “examine” (2 Corinthians 13:5), “tried” (Hebrews 11:17; Revelation 2:2; Revelation 2:10), and “to try” (Revelation 3:10). In sixteen of the references where the verb is used, Jesus Christ is involved, and two speak of God (Acts 15:10; Hebrews 3:9). The noun peirasmos is used 21 times in the New Testament. It is translated “temptation” in all but one place. It is translated “trial” in 1 Peter 4:12. There are only two verses where the word is used in reference to Jesus Christ
(Luke 4:13; Luke 22:28).

Since James said, “...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13), what is the meaning of the statement “lead us not into temptation” of Matthew 6:13 in the model prayer Christ taught His disciples? The verb “lead” is eisenegkes, first aorist active subjunctive of eisphero, which means “to bring in or into.” The active subjunctive means “do not bring us into.” Would God, who does not solicit men to do evil, teach His disciples to pray “do not lead us into solicitation to do evil”?

Since it is contrary to Scripture for God to bring His people into temptation, the noun peirasmos can also mean trial. Is one incorrect to pray that he may be saved from trial? Trial is the common lot of God’s people (James 1:2; James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:6-7; 1 Peter 4:12). The verb “bring” (eisenegkes) of Matthew 6:13 is active. Thus, it represents God as the active Agent who subjects His people to trials but not to solicitation to evil. When this verse is seen in its proper context with the coming kingdom, it is proper to say the Jews will pray to be spared “the hour of trial” (horas tou peirasmou) (Revelation 3:10). That “trial” is not the same as the “common trial” of all saints for all time, Old and New Testament believers alike. This proves that a correct concept of eschatology is necessary for the interpretation of many Scriptures.

Since all Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos), the Spirit of God would not direct inspired penmen to use words that would not apply to either the Son of God or His people. Like many English words, Greek words also can be used in more than one way. The context determines their usage. In all of Christ’s “trials” or “testings,” He had to deal only with that which came from without. Hence, His trials or testings in the wilderness were Divine attestations. The challenge came from God. This is the reason we are told, “Then was Jesus led up by [hupo] the Spirit into the wilderness to be tested by [hupo] the devil” (Matthew 4:1). The verb “led up” is aorist passive indicative of anago, which means to lead up or convey up from a lower to a higher place. The verb in Mark 1:12 is present active indicative of ekballo, which means to thrust forth or to send forth. The verb in Luke 4:1 is imperfect passive of ago, which means to lead or to bring. When a country is united, its only thought is to oppose the enemy without and prove the unity of the country. However, if the country is divided, the first thing is to look for traitors within.

There are two natures within Christians. They are described as “...the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would”
(Galatians 5:17). (See Romans 7:14-25.) Christians, therefore, have a divided house. There is an inward conflict between the Spirit and the flesh. There is a traitor within as well as without.

Jesus Christ had two natures, but both were holy; therefore, there was no conflict within. God’s challenge to Satan, or those working under his direction, was a Divine testimony that nothing but absolute unity of the two holy natures would be found. Wood tested by fire turns to ash. Water tested by fire evaporates. But pure gold tested by fire remains gold. Pure gold has nothing to be eliminated. Christians lose their dross when they are tested, but who will be guilty of blasphemy by saying there was any dross in the God-Man that had to be eliminated by a “fiery trial” (purosis, a fiery test of trying circumstances)
(1 Peter 4:12)? There are two laws within Christians (Romans 7:22-23), but there is only one law, the law of God, in Jesus Christ.