Jesus concluded His sermon with a final warning and summarizing example. As you would expect, it is an illustration of His theme—Only the holy will inherit God’s kingdom.

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them [literally, “does them”], may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them [literally, “does not do them”], will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall (Matt. 7:24-27).

Jesus’ final illustration is not a formula for “success in life” as some use it. The context shows that He was not giving advice on how to prosper financially during tough times by having faith in His promises. This is the summary of all that Jesus had said in His Sermon on the Mount. Those who do what He says are wise and will endure; they need not fear the wrath of God when it falls. Those who don’t obey Him are foolish and will suffer greatly, paying “the penalty of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9).

But, of course, God sees things differently. The “indecency” of which He spoke in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for divorce must have been something very immoral, probably something just short of adultery.^[1] That is, a husband could lawfully divorce his wife if he discovered that she was promiscuous before or during their marriage.

In God’s mind, the imaginary man I’ve just described is no different than an adulterer. He has broken the seventh commandment. In fact, he’s even more guilty than the average adulterer, because he is guilty of “double adultery.” How is that? First, he’s committed adultery himself. Jesus later said, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

Second, because his now-divorced wife must seek another husband to survive, in God’s mind the Pharisee has done the equivalent of forcing his wife to have sex with another man. Thus, he incurs guilt for her “adultery.”^[2] Jesus said, “Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32, emphasis added).

Jesus may even have been charging our lustful Pharisee with “triple adultery” if His statement, “and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32), means that God holds the Pharisee accountable for the “adultery” of his former wife’s new husband.^[3]

This was a hot issue in Jesus’ day, as we read in another place where some Pharisees questioned Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” (Matt. 19:3). Their question reveals their hearts. Obviously, at least some of them wanted to believe divorce was lawful for any cause.

I must also add what a shame it is when Christians take these same scriptures about divorce, misinterpret them, and place heavy shackles on God’s children. Jesus was not talking about the Christian who was divorced when he or she was a sinner, and who, upon finding a wonderful potential mate who also loves Christ, marries that person. That is not anywhere close to being equivalent to adultery! And if that is what Jesus was talking about, we’ll have to change the gospel, because no longer does it provide forgiveness for all the sins of sinners. From now on we’ll have to preach, “Jesus died for you, and if you repent and believe in Him, you can have all your sins forgiven. However, if you’ve been divorced, make sure you never get remarried or else you’ll be living in adultery, and the Bible says that adulterers will go to hell. Also, if you’ve been divorced and remarried, before you come to Christ you need to commit one more sin and divorce your present spouse. Otherwise you’ll continue to live in adultery, and adulterers aren’t saved.”^[4] Is that the gospel?^[5]

^[1] Under the Old Covenant, those who committed adultery were to be stoned.

^[2] Of course, God doesn’t hold her accountable for adultery when she remarries; she was just the victim of her husband’s sin. Obviously, Jesus’ words make no sense unless she does remarry. Otherwise, there is no sense in which she could be considered to be an adulteress.

^[3] Again, God would not hold the new husband accountable for adultery. He’s doing a virtuous thing, marrying and providing for a divorced woman. However, if a man encouraged a woman to divorce her husband so he could marry her, then he would be guilty of adultery, and that is more likely the sin Jesus had in mind here.

^[4] There are, of course, other situations that could be addressed. For example, the Christian woman whose unsaved husband divorces her is certainly not guilty of adultery if she remarries a Christian man.

^[5] In a later chapter about divorce and remarriage, I address this issue more thoroughly.

Not only should we ask who is doing the speaking in any given biblical passage, we should also take note of who is being addressed. If we don’t, we might misinterpret something as applicable to us that isn’t. Or we might interpret something that is applicable to us as not being applicable.

For example, some claim a promise found in Psalm 37:4, believing it applies to them:

He will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

But does that promise apply to everyone who reads or knows it? No, if we read the context, we find that it only applies only to certain people who meet five conditions:

Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness. Delight yourself in the Lord; and He will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:3-4).

So we see how important it is that we take note of who is being addressed.

Here is another example:

Peter began to say to Him [Jesus], “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.” Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life” (Mark 10:28-30).

It is quite popular in some circles to claim the “hundred-fold return” when one gives money to support someone who is preaching the gospel. But does this promise apply to such people? No, it is addressed to people who actually leave their families, farms, or homes to preach the gospel, as did Peter, who asked Jesus what His and the other disciples’ reward would be.

Interestingly, those who always preach about the hundred-fold return seem to always focus on the houses and farms, and never the children and persecutions that are also promised! Jesus, of course, was not promising that those who leave their homes will receive ownership of one-hundred homes in return. He was promising that when they leave their families and homes, the members of their new spiritual families will open up their homes for lodging. True disciples don’t care about ownership because they don’t own anything themselves—they are only stewards of that which is God’s.

We should always note who is doing the speaking in any given biblical passage, as that bit of contextual information will help us rightly interpret it. Although everything in the Bible is inspired to be in the Bible, not everything in the Bible is the inspired Word of God. What do I mean?

In many passages of Scripture, the uninspired words of people are recorded. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that everything spoken by people in the Bible is inspired by God.

For example, some make the error of quoting the words of Job and his friends as if they were the inspired words of God. There are two reasons why this is a mistake. First, Job and his friends argued for thirty-four chapters. They disagreed. Obviously not everything they said could be God’s inspired Word because God doesn’t contradict Himself.

Second, at the close of the book of Job, God Himself speaks, and He rebukes both Job and his friends for saying things that were not correct (see Job 38-42).

We must take the same precautions when reading the New Testament. In several cases, Paul plainly stated that certain portions of his writings were only his own opinions (see 1 Cor. 7:12, 25-26, 40).

Because the Bible is inspired by one Person, its message is consistent throughout. That is why we can trust context to help us interpret God’s intended meaning in any given passage. God would not say something in one verse that contradicts another verse, and if it appears that He has, we need to keep studying until our interpretation of both verses harmonizes. For example, in several places in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, it may at first appear as if He was contradicting, even correcting, an Old Testament moral law. For example:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matt. 5:38-39).

Jesus directly quoted from the Mosaic Law and then made a statement that seemed to contradict the very law He quoted. How are we to interpret what He said? Has God changed His mind on an issue of basic morality? Was taking revenge acceptable behavior under the old covenant but not the new? The context is what will help us.

Jesus was speaking primarily to His disciples (see Matt. 5:1-2), people whose only previous exposure to God’s Word was via the scribes and Pharisees who taught in their synagogues. There they had heard God’s law quoted, “An eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” a commandment whose meaning the scribes and Pharisees had twisted by ignoring its context. God did not intend for that commandment to be interpreted as a requirement for His people to always gain personal revenge for petty wrongs. He, in fact, said in the Mosaic Law that vengeance was His (see Deut. 32:35), and that His people should do good to their enemies (see Ex. 23:4-5). But the scribes and Pharisees ignored those commandments and invented their own interpretation of God’s “eye for an eye” law, one that gave them the convenient right of personal revenge.^[1] They ignored context.

God’s commandment about “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is found within the context of His commandments that prescribe due justice in Israel’s courts (see Ex. 21:22-24; Deut. 19:15-21). Making provision for a court system is in itself a revelation of God’s disproval of personal revenge. Impartial judges who examine evidence are much more able to administer justice than are offended, biased individuals. God expects that courts and judges will impartially dole out punishments that fit the crimes. Thus, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”

All this being so, we are able to harmonize what at first appears contradictory. Jesus was simply helping His audience, people who had sat under false teaching all their lives, understand God’s true will for them regarding personal revenge, what had already been revealed in the Law of Moses but had been twisted by the Pharisees. Jesus was not contradicting the Law He gave to Moses. He was only revealing its originally-intended meaning.

This also helps us rightly understand what Jesus expects of us in regard to major disputes, the kind of which might lead to a court case. God did not expect the Israelites to overlook any and every offense suffered from fellow Israelites, otherwise He would not have established a court system. Likewise, God does not expect Christians to overlook any and every offense suffered by means of fellow believers (or non-believers). The New Testament prescribes that irreconcilable Christians use the mediatory help of fellow believers (see 1 Cor. 6:1-6). And there is nothing wrong with a Christian taking a non-believer to secular courts regarding disputes of major offense. Major offenses are such things as having your eye or tooth knocked out! Minor offenses are the kinds of things Jesus spoke of, like being slapped on the cheek, or being sued for a small settlement (like your shirt), or being forced to go one mile. God wants His people to imitate Him and show extraordinary grace to thoughtless sinners and evil people.

Along these same lines, there have been some well-meaning believers who, thinking they were obeying Jesus, refused to press legal charges against those who had been caught stealing from them. They thought they were “turning the other cheek,” when it reality they were enabling a thief to steal again, teaching him that there are no consequences for crime. Such Christians are not walking in love towards everyone else who will have their goods stolen by that same thief! God wants thieves to suffer justice and repent. But when someone offends you in some minor way, such as slapping your cheek, don’t take him to court or slap him back. Show him mercy and love.

^[1] It should also be noted that Jesus had said earlier in His sermon that unless His audience’s righteousness surpassed that of the scribes and Pharisees, they would not enter heaven (see Matt. 5:20). Jesus then continued by revealing a number of specific ways in which the scribes and Pharisees were falling short.

Paul’s words in his letter to the Galatians have been similarly interpreted out of their context. The result has been the distortion of the gospel, the very thing that Paul was hoping to correct in his letter to the Galatians.

The entire theme of Paul’s letter to the Galatians is “Salvation by faith, and not by works of the Law.” But did Paul intend that his readers would conclude that holiness was not necessary to gain entrance into God’s kingdom? Certainly not.

First, we note that Paul was once again combating Jews who had come to Galatia and were teaching the new converts that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised and kept the Law of Moses. Paul mentions the particular issue of circumcision repeatedly in his letter, as that seems to have been the primary emphasis of the Jewish legalists (see Gal. 2:3, 7-9, 12; 5:2-3, 6, 11; 6:12-13, 15). Paul was not concerned that the Galatian believers were becoming too obedient to Christ’s commandments; he was concerned that they were no longer placing their faith in Christ for their salvation, but in circumcision and in their own feeble efforts at keeping the Mosaic Law.

As we consider the entire context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, we note that he writes in chapter 5:

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:18-21; emphasis added).

If Paul wanted to convey to the Galatians that they could be unholy and gain heaven, then he would have never written such words. His message was not that unholy people could go to heaven, but that those who nullify God’s grace and Christ’s sacrifice by trying to earn their salvation through circumcision and the Mosaic Law cannot be saved. It is not circumcision that brings salvation. It is faith in Jesus that results in a salvation that changes believers into holy new creations

For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation (Gal. 6:15).

All of this, again, shows how vital it is to consider context when interpreting Scripture. The only way that the gospel can be distorted by means of the Word of God is by ignoring context. We can only wonder about the hearts of “ministers” who do this in such a blatant way that it cannot be anything but deliberate.

For example, I once heard a preacher declare that we should never mention God’s wrath when we preach the gospel, because the Bible says that, “it is the kindness of God that leads you to repentance” (Rom. 2:4). Thus, according to him, the proper way to proclaim the gospel was to speak only of God’s love and goodness. That would supposedly lead people to repent.

But when we read the context of the solitary verse that preacher quoted from the second chapter of Romans, we discover that it is encased by scriptures about God’s judgment and holy wrath! The immediate context reveals that there isn’t any possibility that Paul’s intended meaning was what that preacher said it was:

And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. And do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment upon those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek (Rom. 2:2-9; emphasis added).

Paul’s reference to God’s kindness is about the kindness God shows in delaying His wrath! And one wonders how a minister could make such an absurd statement in light the greater context of the Bible, which is full of examples of preachers who publicly warned sinners to repent.

Reading scriptures without taking into consideration their immediate and biblical context is perhaps the primary cause of misinterpretation.

It is possible to make the Bible say anything you want it to say by isolating scriptures from their context. For example, did you know that the Bible says that God doesn’t exist? In Psalm 14 we read, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). If we want to interpret those words accurately, however, we must read them within their context: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Ps. 14:1, emphasis added). Now this verse takes on a whole different meaning!

Another example: I once heard a preacher give a sermon on the Christians’ need to be “baptized in fire.” He began his sermon by reading the words of John the Baptist from Matthew 3:11: “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

Based on this one verse, he built a sermon. I remember him saying, “Just because you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, that is not enough! Jesus also wants to baptize you in fire, just like John the Baptist proclaimed!” He went on to explain that, once we had been “baptized in fire,” we would be full of zeal to work for the Lord. Finally he had an altar call for people who wanted to be “baptized in fire.”

Unfortunately, that particular preacher had made the classic mistake of taking a scripture out of its context.

What did John the Baptist mean when he said that Jesus would baptize with fire? To find the answer, all we need to do is read the two verses before that verse, and one verse after it. Let’s begin with the two preceding verses. There John said:

And do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father”; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt. 3:9-10, emphasis added).

We first learn that at least part of John’s audience that day consisted of Jews who thought their salvation was based upon their lineage. Thus, John’s sermon was evangelistic.

We also learn that John was warning that unsaved people are in danger of being cast into the fire. It would seem reasonable to conclude that “the fire” of which John spoke in verse 10 is the same fire of which he spoke in verse 11.

This fact becomes even clearer when we read verse 12:

“And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12, emphasis added).

In both verses 10 and 12, the fire of which John was speaking was the fire of hell. In verse 12, he metaphorically states that Jesus will divide people into two groups—wheat, which He will “gather into the barn,” and chaff, which He will burn up “with unquenchable fire.”

In light of the surrounding verses, John must have meant in verse 11 that Jesus will baptize people either with the Holy Spirit, if they are believers, or with fire, if they are unbelievers. Since that is the case, no one should preach to Christians that they need to be baptized in fire!

Moving beyond the immediate context of these verses, we should also look to the rest of the New Testament. Can we find an example in the book of Acts where Christians are said to have been “baptized in fire”? No. The closest thing is Luke’s description of the day of Pentecost when the disciples were baptized in the Holy Spirit and tongues of fire temporarily appeared over their heads. But Luke never says that this was a “baptism in fire.” Moreover, can we find an exhortation or any instruction in the epistles for Christians to be “baptized in fire”? No. Therefore, it is quite safe to conclude that no Christian should be seeking a baptism in fire.

Every one of us approaches the Scripture with some pre-conceived biases. For that reason, it is often very difficult for us to read the Bible honestly. We end up forcing our beliefs into Scripture, rather than letting the Bible mold our theology. We sometimes even hunt for scriptures that will support our doctrines, ignoring those that contradict our beliefs. This is known as “proof-texting.”

Here is an example I recently encountered of forcing theology into a text. A particular teacher first read Matthew 11:28-29, a well-known quotation of Jesus:

Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls (Matt. 11:28-29)

The teacher then went on to explain that Jesus was offering two different rests. The first rest (supposedly) is the rest of salvation in 11:28, and the second rest is the rest of discipleship in 11:29. The first rest is received by coming to Jesus; the second rest is received by submitting to Him as Lord, or taking His yoke.

But was that the meaning Jesus intended? No, that is forcing a meaning into the text that is neither stated nor implied. Jesus didn’t say He was offering two rests. He was offering one rest to those who are weary and heavy-laden, and the only way to receive that singular rest is by taking Jesus’ yoke, that is, submitting to Him. That is Jesus’ obvious meaning.

Why did that teacher come up with such an interpretation? Because the obvious meaning of the passage didn’t fit his belief that there are two kinds of heaven-bound Christians—believers and disciples. So he did not interpret this passage honestly.

Of course, as we have seen from scores of other scriptures earlier in this book as we considered that particular theology, that teacher’s interpretation doesn’t fit the context of the rest of what Jesus taught. Nowhere does the New Testament teach that there are two kinds of heaven-bound Christians, the believers and the disciples. All true believers are disciples. Those who are not disciples are not believers. Discipleship is the fruit of genuine faith.

Let us strive to read the Bible honestly, with pure hearts. If we will, the result will be more devotion and obedience to Christ.

Here is another familiar parable of Jesus, the Parable of the Ten Virgins:

Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to [is like] ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. But at midnight there was a shout, “Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.” Then all those virgins rose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the prudent, “Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” But the prudent answered, saying, “No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.” And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. And later the other virgins also came, saying, “Lord, lord, open up for us.” But he answered and said, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you.” Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour (Matt. 25:1-13).

What is the primary lesson of this parable? It is found in the final sentence: Stay ready for the return of the Lord, because He might delay longer than you expect. That’s about it.

As I mentioned in a previous chapter, Jesus spoke this parable to some of His closest disciples (see Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3), who were obviously obediently following Him at that time. So clearly implied in this parable is the fact that it was possible for Peter, James, John and Andrew to not be ready when Jesus returned. That is why Jesus was warning them. Thus this parable teaches that there is a possibility that those who are currently ready for Christ’s return may not be ready when He actually does return. All ten virgins were initially ready, but five became unready. Had the bridegroom returned sooner, all ten would have gained entrance into the wedding feast.

But what is the significance of there being five foolish and five wise virgins? Does that prove that only one-half of professing believers will be ready when Christ returns? No.

What is the significance of the oil? Does it represent the Holy Spirit? No. Does it reveal to us that only those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit will make it into heaven? No.

Does the bridegroom’s returning at midnight reveal that Jesus will return at midnight? No.

Why didn’t the bridegroom ask the wise virgins to identify their foolish friends at the door? If the bridegroom had asked the wise to identify the foolish, it would have ruined the entire point of the parable, as the foolish would have ultimately gained entrance.

Perhaps it could be said that, just as the foolish virgins no longer had light and went to sleep, so foolish believers begin to walk in spiritual darkness and go to sleep spiritually, thus ultimately leading to their condemnation. Perhaps a similarity could be found in the wedding feast of the parable and the future wedding feast of the Lamb. But that is about as far as one can go without forcing meaning into this parable or its various details.

Scripture, like all literature, is full of figures of speech, such a metaphors, hyperboles and anthropomorphisms. They should be taken as such.

A metaphor is a comparison of similarities between two basically dissimilar things. Scripture contains many metaphors. One can be found in Christ’s words during the Last Supper:

And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28).

Did Jesus mean that the bread He gave His disciples was literally His body and that the wine they drank was literally His blood? Common sense tells us No. Scripture plainly says that it was bread and wine that Jesus gave them, and it says nothing about them changing, literally, into flesh and blood at any point in time. Neither Peter nor John, present at the Last Supper, ever reported such a thing in their epistles, and it is very unlikely that the disciples would have had an easy time of playing the part of cannibals!

Some argue, “But Jesus said that the bread and wine were His body and blood, and so I’m going to believe what Jesus said!”

Jesus also once said that He was the door (see John 10:9). Did He literally become a door with hinges and a doorknob? Jesus once said that He was the vine and that we are the branches (see John 15:5). Did Jesus literally become a grape vine? Have we literally become vine branches? Jesus once said that He was light of the world and the bread that came down out of heaven (see John 9:5; 6:41). Is Jesus also the sunlight and a loaf of bread?

Clearly, all of these expressions are figures of speech called metaphors, a comparison of two things that are basically dissimilar but which share some similarities. In some ways, Jesus was like a door and a grape vine. Jesus’ statements at the Last Supper are obvious metaphors as well. The wine was like His blood (in some ways). The bread was like His body (in some ways).