THE BIBLICALBEREAN SPIRIT

“Thesewere more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word withall readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those thingswere so” (Acts 17:11).

Some years ago, I was one of the leaders in a particular Christian fellowshipgroup. There were about thirty or forty young adults in the group. We met everyweekend, and each time we would either have a Bible Study or a sermon by aninvited speaker. Although most of the speakers came from the same churchdenomination, we had a variety of opinions being expressed each week. Therewere some who were inclined to Calvinism, some who were inclined toArminianism, some who would vouch for Dispensationalism, and others whom wecould only describe as confused or without any theological system. Onepreacher, for example, was asked to speak on the ordo salutis (order of salvation). Instead ofpresenting an order that can be found in practically any systematic theology,he invented one where he placed ‘faith’ right at the beginning, and‘regeneration’ towards the end! Not only so, he also had terms in between thatno systematic or biblical theologians would ever include in theordo salutis.Another preacher spoke on sovereignty of God, in which he essentially taughtthat God cooperates with man; and not just that man is responsible!

In the face of such diversity and sometimes heretical teachings, what did theleaders of the group do? Well, there were times when we had corrective sessionsin which we tried to justify the preachers: “Perhaps he did not mean what weperceived him to be saying…”; “Perhaps he was looking from the humanperspective…”; etc. But beyond that, we also urged the members of thefellowship group to be “Berean Christians.”

What we meant by being a “Berean Christian” was that we were to hear allpreaching with suspicion, and we were to compare what we hear with theScripture to see if what was preached was in accordance with the Scripture, andthen to apply into our lives only if we were convinced that what was preachedwas indeed in accordance to Scripture. To buttress this idea, we used 1Thessalonians 5:21, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” This‘Berean’ approach to sermon-hearing sounds right. In fact, some of us may evenhave this principle so ingrained that we would normally attend any sermon withsuch a spirit. But is this the biblical spirit?

I am afraid it is not. In this short article, I would like to explain what isthe true biblical Berean spirit. But first let us take a quick look at some ofthe problems that attend to the kind of ‘Berean spirit’ outlined above.

Problems of a False Berean Spirit

Firstly, such a spirit gives rise to a very critical attitude when hearingsermons. The hearing of sermons would often become an academic exercise ratherthan being a means of grace. Such an attitude can easily descend into spiritualpride manifested by a I-know-better-than-the-preacher mentality.

Secondly, we may receive all things with suspicion, with all intentions tocheck the biblical validity later. But experience shows us that more often thannot, we do not have the time or energy to study whether what was preached wascorrect,—even if we had the inclination and ability to do so. Thus, we wouldlikely land up not receiving anything preached except what are obviousre-statements of Scripture verses. The inevitable result would be thatpreaching would no longer serve as a means to transform our lives.

Thirdly, how many of us are actually equipped to assess any message to knowwhat parts we were to check with Scriptures and what we need not. It is cruelfor us to counsel young believers to exercise such a kind of ‘Berean spirit.’It would breed not only confusion but a contempt for preaching.

Yes, we cannot deny that in some situations, a suspicious attitude towardspreaching may be better than a gullible receive-all attitude. Such may be thecase in the fellowship situation mentioned above. For, in order to giveourselves a foundation to judge the messages we hear, we began to read widely,especially Reformed and Puritan works as well as systematic theologies andexposition of the confessional standards of the church. This proved to be themost fruitful and rewarding exercise as many of us found that we could learn muchmore from the books. However, this only increase our suspicion when we hearsermons because we began to see that often our invited speakers had systems oftheology that were quite different from the stated confession of thedenomination.

But, that does not change the fact that the ‘Berean spirit’ which we hadadopted was not biblical, and should not be the norm in our hearing of sermons.It might be the best alternative when confronted with having to listen to agreat variety of theological persuasions, but it must not be the attitude toadopt when attending sermons which are in accordance to the agreed doctrinalstatement of the church.

The True Berean Spirit

So what is the true Berean spirit? Why were theBereans in Acts 17 regarded as being more noble than the Thessalonians? First,it must be noted that the Bereans were not said to be more noble primarilybecause they searched the Scriptures to see whether what was taught by Paul wastrue. They did do that, and it is right that we should attribute that noble actto their name. But that is not the point of comparison. The point of comparisonis that the majority of the Thessalonians not only rejected Paul and Silas butessentially drove them out (Acts 17:5–10); whereas on the other hand, theBereans “received the word with all readiness of mind.” In fact, reading Acts17:11 in Greek would immediately show that the main verb in the verse is“received” (Greek: dechomai),whereas the verb rendered “searched” (Greek: anakrinô)is a participle.

In other words, the true biblical Berean is one who receives the word with allreadiness of mind (or with eagerness). Matthew Henry describes the Bereansthus:

Theywere very willing to hear it, presently apprehended the meaning of it, and didnot shut their eyes against the light. They attended to the things that werespoken by Paul, as Lydia did, and were very well pleased to hear them. They didnot pick quarrels with the word, nor find fault, nor seek occasion against thepreachers of it; but bade it welcome, and put a candid construction upon everything that was said (Commentary inloc.).

It should be immediately obvious that receiving the word with suspicion issimply the opposite of the Berean spirit. The Bereans received the word withgladness and reverence, and a ready assent to what was taught. We may inferthat their checking the Scripture (in this case the Old Testament) was not witha suspicious attitude or a preconception that it was probably wrong. Rather, itmust be with a desire to see a confirmation in the Scriptures. This does notmean, of course, that the Bereans accepted all that Paul said by trust orimplicit faith, and not by trial against the Scripture. They did prove allthings (1 Thes 5:21). The difference is in their initial reception of the wordand the attitude with which they examined the Scriptures. The false Bereanreceives the word as “False until proven True,” the true Berean under normalcircumstances receives the word as “True unless proven False.” This differencewould become obvious where it is not so straightforward to determine if what issaid is true.

For example, suppose the Apostle Paul had preached on Psalm 16:10–11 to affirmthe resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:25–28, 13:35–37). If hislisteners had a false Berean attitude of suspicion, how would they havereacted? They could simply brush it aside and say, “This is a psalm of David.David was hoping that God would not let his body rot in the grave. It saysnothing about the Messiah” (remember that “Holy One” can also be translated““faithful one,” i.e., referring to David). The true Berean would recognisePaul as a minister of God and accept his exposition of the text. Of course,this does not mean that they would not go back to Paul to seek furtherclarifications if they find that he appeared to have quoted out of context orwrongly.

The word of God

In fact, to further confirm that this was theirattitude, we note that Paul’s preaching was known as “the word.” Why is it socalled? It is so called only as a short form of “the word of God” (see Acts17:13). In other words, the preaching of Paul was regarded by the Bereans asthe “word of God.” When Paul preached, he was received as the herald of Christ,and his sermon was received as the “word of God.” This is how the Scriptureviews preaching. The Apostles “spake the wordof God with boldness” (Acts4:31). It was not reason that they should leave “the word of God [i.e., ministry of preaching andteaching], and serve tables” (Acts 6:2). Sergius Paulus, and later the wholecity of Antioch in Pisidia, desired to hear “the word of God” (Acts 13:7, 44).Note, moreover, that Acts 17:11 demonstrates how that “the word of God” doesnot refer to the Scriptures, but to preaching, since the Berean examined whatwas said with the Scripture. While the written Word is infallibly andinerrantly inspired, the same cannot be said of preaching. Yet, preaching mustbe attended to as if we are hearing the very word of God.

It is for this reason that when Reformed theologians say that the Word is ameans of grace, they are particularly referring to the ministry of the Word ofGod through preaching. The preaching of the Word is indispensable to faith inChrist (see Rom 10:14–17). This, of course, does not mean that personal Biblestudies by individuals are unwarranted or useless. No, we believe in theperspicuity of Holy Scripture, and that every believer has the unction of theHoly Spirit (1 Jn 2:27). Nevertheless, the work of Christ through the church asHis body must not be diminished. It must be regarded as the main means of graceby which Christ reigns over His Church.

Calvin was one who so taught:

Howis it that God promiseth that He will reign in the midst of His people? He dothnot say, because He inspireth them, that they have leave to coin new articlesof faith! No, no: but He saith He will put the words of our Lord Jesus Christinto the mouth of such as must preach His name [cf. Isa 51:16]. For the promisewas not made for the time of the law only, but is proper for the church of Christ,and shall continue to the end of the world (Sermon on 1 Timothy 3:14–15).

Notice the same idea in Spurgeon’s thought:

…tonight Jesus speaks to us in the gospel. So far as his gospel shall bepreached by us here, it shall not be the word of man, but the word of God; andalthough it comes to you through a feeble tongue, yet the truth itself is notfeeble, nor is it any less divine than if Christ himself should speak it withhis own lips. “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh” (Sermon on Hebrews12:25, preached on Lord’s Day evening, November 27, 1870).

So, then, as Berean Christians, we must attend to preaching as the “word ofGod.” How could we attend to the “word of God” with a disposition of suspicion?Let us rather take heed of the advice of the WestminsterLarger Catechism, Question160,

Q: Whatis required of those that hear the Word preached?

A: It is requiredof those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, as the word of God; meditate,and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it intheir lives.

Practical Issues

All these are good in theory. But in reality, thereare a few problems.

First of all, what if the preacher makes a clear-cut mistake? Well, naturally,we must reject that portion of the sermon and the applications that may attendto it. Nevertheless, we must refrain from the temptation to listen to thepreacher with suspicion from then on.

Secondly, what if the preacher says something that we have never heard before,or requires of us a duty which we had never afore been made aware of; and wefind his presentation or proof from Scripture not thoroughly convincing forsome reasons? I would suggest that in such a situation, it would be wise tocheck who else in the history of the Church has taken the view. Ask thepreacher to show you! If what is taught is an innovation never before viewedfavourably in orthodox Christianity, then you have a good reason to reject itor to be suspicious about it even if you may not be able to prove thepreacher’s exegesis to be wrong. However, if it can be shown that what istaught was held also by a goodly company of Reformed theologians in the past,then I would urge that the doctrine and practice be received with readiness ofmind and applied even if you are not yet thoroughly convinced. This, I believewould be a safer course of action than to ignore what was preached or to delayimplementation. Of course, if you should eventually have the time to examinemore thoroughly the doctrine, then I would encourage you to do so.

Thirdly, what if the preacher insists on a particular view of a certainpassage, when it is known that there are differing views on the passage, and itis difficult to determine which view is correct? Well, then I would suggestthat you use the Confession of the church as a guide. The Confession is thestated consensus of the church. We must not despise the Confession. We mustrather seek to promote unity in the church by giving preference to theinterpretation of the Confession. Now, of course, I am not saying that if youhave studied a particular issue thoroughly and are convinced that theConfession is wrong, that you should still follow blindly. No, if you areconvinced that the Confession is wrong, there are two recourses: (1) seek tohave the church recognise the error; or (2) resign to join a church which holdsto a Confession you are comfortable with. Whatever the case, let us striveagainst the individualistic and private spirit which despises the use ofConfessional standards. This spirit is so prevalent in our day and is oftendisguised as the Berean spirit. Take heed to A.A. Hodge’s warning:

Ifthey refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowlyelaborated and defined by the Church, they must make out their own creed bytheir own unaided wisdom. The real question is not, as often pretended, betweenthe Word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith ofthe collective body of God’s people, and the private judgment and the unassistedwisdom of the repudiator of creeds (Confession of Faith, 2).

Fourthly, what if your preacher has much limitations and is unable to preachwell at all? Well, listen to Salmon Treat in his preface to Solomon Stoddard’stract entitled The Defects ofPreachers Reproved:

Have you plenty of good preaching? You are highlyfavoured of God, you have the means of making the best gains; bless God for it,and esteem your preacher highly in love for his works’ sake. If you are underdull preaching, take heed of a froward mouth and wrangling carriage. Consideryour preacher is such as God’s providence hath carved to you; and remember thatGod is able to give to you help in that matter. Lament it before God, and praynight and day for your preacher, that the Lord will enlarge him with grace andministerial gifts; and do what you can to advantage him in his great work.

Conclusion

Do you have a true biblical Berean spirit, dearlybeloved? I believe that unless you begin to cultivate such a spirit, thischurch will not attain to its desired unity of faith. As the Session of thischurch seeks to minimise heterodoxy on our pulpits, may the Lord grant us thatwe would disabuse our minds of the false Berean spirit, and start to receivethe word preached with all readiness of mind as true biblical Bereans. Amen.

—JJ Lim

Erratum / Addendum

An astute brother pointed out that there should be a third recourse, namely,that if the issue is a relatively minor one, and you have brought up to thesession, and the session cannot agree with your conclusions, that you shouldjust overlook the difference and focus on your agreement with the Confession onmajor issues. I cannot agree more with this suggestion, and should not haveneglected to mention it. It is, admittedly, difficult for many of us to discernwhat is major and what is minor; and oftentimes, what may in fact be relativelyminor can become a major issue for us because we read much about it, andthought much about it. I would like therefore to put it in another way, namely:“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom12:18). In other words, you may want to register your difference (with thesession) for conscience sake, and let the session advise you on what recourseyou should take. But on your part, if you can overlook the difference, thenoverlook it for the sake of peace in the church, and seek not to promote yourviewpoint in the church where your viewpoint is substantially different fromthe confessional standard of the church. The Confession, remember, needs not besubscribed to fully by every member of the church, but it is a tool to promotethe unity of the church.