Using The General To Condemn The Specific

Consider this setting. Daddy catches his little boy Johnny riding his bike on Maple Street which runs in front of their house. He promptly tells him riding on the street is too dangerous, and that if he rides his bike on the street again, he will be spanked. A week later, Daddy catches Johnny riding his bike on the street running behind the house, Pine Street. He takes his boy inside telling him that he is going to get a spanking. When Johnny asks why, Daddy’s reply is that he told Johnny not to ride his bike on the street, but that he had gone ahead and done it anyway. Johnny replies, "But Daddy, when you told me not to ride on the street last week, I was riding on Maple Street, and so I thought you only meant that I couldn’t ride on Maple Street since that was the street that was ‘specifically under consideration in the context’ of your rebuke."

Is little Johnny’s argumentation/reasoning valid? It is easy to understand it is not, isn’t it? It would seem obvious Daddy had meant to not only disallow Johnny’s riding on Maple Street, but also disallow riding on any street, when he told Johnny not to ride his bike “on the street” (generic) again. What Johnny’s Dad was doing was "using the general to condemn the specific." It is easy for most everyone to understand this case, but some, even Christians, can’t understand scriptural parallels to this example.

Let’s begin by discussing some Biblical parallels to the preceding example that most do seem to understand. Many Christians frequently quote I Corinthians 15:33 ("Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners") when instructing their teen-age children concerning the type of friends they should spend the bulk of their time with. This is a correct use of this passage even though Paul is specifically warning the Corinthians here about making companions of (siding with) those that teach falsely "that there is no resurrection of the dead" (I Corinthians 15:12). Paul here is using a general statement to condemn a specific. This does not mean that Paul is only condemning making companions of those who teach falsely concerning the resurrection; no Paul is condemning all "evil" companionships, which would include, but not be limited to, the one specifically under consideration, companionship with one who teaches that there will be no resurrection. The preceding example of Johnny and his Dad is a parallel. Daddy was using a statement to forbid riding on "the street" (which would be any street), which at that moment was a rebuke to Johnny for riding his bike on Maple Street, said street falling under the general category of any street.

Another example we are familiar with is found in Matthew 15:14. Jesus is specifically talking about the Pharisees in the first part of the verse when he says, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind." In the second part of the verse, Jesus states in a general way, "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch," condemning not only the Pharisees specifically, but any other person who leads people astray through false teaching as the Pharisees did. Jesus here is "using the general to condemn the specific."

Another example is Hebrews 9:16-17. Here the writer states a general rule that would apply to any will or testament, that a will does not go into effect until after the testator is dead. The writer is applying this rule to a specific testator and testament in the context, however, "Christ" and His "new testament" (Hebrews 9:14-15).

How about Matt 6:24? – “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” That passage forbids us letting money specifically be our master over God, but wouldn’t it also tell us not to let anything be our master over God generally speaking? – for example, Alabama football, our job, our family, the pleasures of sin, etc.?

Another easy one to see is III John 11a which reads “…follow not that which is evil, but that which is good.” John is specifically talking about following a particular man in verses 9-10 saying “Diotrephes … loveth to have the preeminence … neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.” But verse 11 would instruct us not to follow after any evil, not only just Diotrephes, right?

As with the example of Johnny and his Dad, most can understand these Biblical examples. However, some don’t seem to understand so easily in other scriptural cases …

For example, some think the withdrawal commanded concerning every brother "that walketh disorderly" in II Thessalonians 3:6 would only apply to Christians who are "busybodies" (v.11), those who "would not work" (v.10), as those are the ones "specifically under consideration in the context." While it is true Christians who will not work are the ones specifically under consideration in the context, this by no means limits the instruction of verse 6 to only those who will not work. Paul here is "using the general to condemn the specific." Paul is saying that all who walk disorderly ("out of the ranks" – Thayer), all who walk "not after the tradition" which Paul taught (v.6), are to be withdrawn from. This would include Christians who will not work, as that is one of the ways a Christian can walk disorderly. It would also include Christians who commit other types of sins that could be described as being "out of the ranks" with Christ’s teaching.

Another example can be found in I Corinthians 11:22,34. Here, Paul is specifically correcting the Corinthian’s abuse of the Lord’s supper, that of eating the supper in order to satisfy their hunger. Paul condemns this specific practice by giving them the general instruction to "eat at home" when eating to satisfy hunger. This instruction would condemn all eating to satisfy hunger that might be done in the assembly (v.18), whether it was done in connection with the Lord’s supper, or completely disconnected from the Lord’s supper.

Galatians 1:6-9 is a general used to condemn the specific of going back to the old law. But I think it is easy to see that preaching a gospel different in another way would be just as condemned by the passage.

Another example is in II John v.9, where John says, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." Many say the "doctrine of Christ" here refers only to the doctrine about Christ, and point to verse 7 in support. Verse 7 is indeed discussing a particular doctrine concerning Christ himself, the doctrine "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." However, this "doctrine about Christ" is a part of the "doctrine that Christ taught," and that is what is referred to in verse 9. John condemns the specific practice of teaching that Christ did not come in the flesh, by condemning all deviations from Christ’s teaching, including the specific just mentioned. John is using a general condemnation to censure the false teaching specifically under consideration, and in so doing condemns any and all departures from the teaching of Christ.

Let’s always be careful to understand everything we read in the Bible in the light of its immediate context. However, let’s don’t hide behind this correct, but often misused rule of "interpretation." Let’s don’t be guilty of "contexting a passage to death;" that is, making a statement in a passage only apply to what is specifically under consideration in the context, when the writer is clearly using a general statement to condemn, not only what is mentioned specifically, but also any other sin that would be condemned by the same general rule stated. If we do, we will be guilty of taking away from the word of God (Revelation 22:19).

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:04 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 or at BibleCrossfire.com