Exegetical Fallacies: The Anatomy of Misreading God’s Word

J. Neil Daniels

ABSTRACT 

Biblical interpretation is highly susceptible to false premises during the exegesis process, particularly when the interpreter violates the laws of language and logic or operates under faulty presuppositions. Misunderstandings of language principles, such as word definitions and usage, context, or grammar, can lead to incorrect conclusions about the text's meaning. Similarly, neglecting the principles of logic, including argumentation, premises, and reasoning, results in false conclusions. Additionally, preunderstanding or biases brought to the text can skew the interpreter's approach and the specific preconceived notions they bring with them in determining meaning. This chapter excerpt from a work in progress on theological methodology aims to identify and address these fallacies, promoting more accurate and faithful biblical interpretation.

Introduction

In the realm of biblical interpretation, the pursuit of accurately understanding the Scriptures is paramount. Exegesis, the process of interpreting and explaining biblical texts, requires careful attention to the principles of language, context, and logic. However, even the most well-intentioned scholars and students can fall prey to various exegetical fallacies, which have extensively cataloged and carefully discussed by D.A. Carson in his classic Exegetical Fallacies.[1] These fallacies occur when the interpreter violates the laws of language and logic or operates under faulty presuppositions, leading to incorrect conclusions about the text's meaning.

Importance of Accurate Biblical Interpretation

Accurate biblical interpretation is crucial for several reasons. It ensures that the intended message of the Scripture is faithfully conveyed and understood. Misinterpretations can lead to doctrinal errors, misguided beliefs, and practices that deviate from the truth of the biblical text. Therefore, recognizing and avoiding exegetical fallacies is essential for maintaining the integrity of biblical teaching and promoting sound theology.

Common Pitfalls in Exegesis

Exegesis is susceptible to three primary categories of pitfalls:

1. Language: Misunderstanding the principles of language, such as word definitions, usage, context, and grammar, can lead to faulty interpretations.

2. Logic: Neglecting or distorting principles of argumentation, premises, and reasoning results in illogical conclusions.

3. Presuppositions: Preunderstanding or biases brought to the text can skew the interpreter's approach and conclusions.

Outline Structure

This brief essay will explore the various exegetical fallacies that fall into these categories, structured as follows:

1. Word-Study Fallacies: Errors in understanding and interpreting individual words and their meanings.

2. Grammatical Fallacies: Mistakes related to the grammatical and syntactical analysis of the text.

3. Logical Fallacies: Violations of logical principles in drawing conclusions from the text.

4. Presuppositional and Historical Fallacies: The impact of prior biases and historical reconstructions on interpretation.

Word-Study Fallacies

Definition and Impact

Word-study fallacies occur when interpreters misinterpret or misuse words in the biblical text, often by disregarding the principles of language and context. These fallacies are common because word studies are relatively easy to conduct with accessible resources like concordances, lexicons, and Bible dictionaries. However, these studies can easily lead to incorrect conclusions if not approached with proper linguistic and contextual understanding. The impact of word-study fallacies is significant as they can distort the intended meaning of the text, leading to theological misunderstandings and doctrinal errors.

The importance of context in determining meaning cannot be overstated. Words derive their meaning not in isolation but within the framework of sentences, paragraphs, and larger textual units. Misinterpreting words by ignoring their context often leads to erroneous interpretations that do not reflect the true intent of the biblical authors.

Types of Word-Study Fallacies

The following are common types of word-study fallacies along with their definitions and examples.

Root Fallacy

The root fallacy assumes that the true meaning of a word is found in its root or etymology, regardless of how the word is used in its contemporary context. For example, interpreting the Greek word dynamis (δύναμις) to always mean “dynamite” or explosive power because of its etymological root, rather than considering its varied usage in the New Testament to denote ability, power, or miracle, is a root fallacy.

Semantic Anachronism

Semantic anachronism involves reading a contemporary meaning of a word back into earlier biblical literature. An example of this is assuming the modern English meaning of “gay” (homosexual) when interpreting the King James Bible, where “gay” simply means “happy” or “bright.”

Semantic Obsolescence

Semantic obsolescence occurs when one assigns a meaning to a word that it had in an earlier time period but is no longer within its semantic range at the time of the text’s composition. For instance, using an ancient or outdated meaning of “compass” in Psalm 32:7 (KJV), where it says, “Thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance,” thinking it means “a navigational instrument” rather than “surround,” is an example of semantic obsolescence.

Appeal to Unknown or Unlikely Meanings

This fallacy involves appealing to a rare or unlikely meaning of a word to support a particular theological perspective. For example, claiming that “baptism” in Acts 2:38 refers to a metaphorical cleansing rather than the more commonly understood ritual immersion exemplifies this fallacy.

Careless Appeal to Background Material

Using background information to infer meanings for words or phrases without substantial evidence or valid connections constitutes a careless appeal to background material. An example is asserting that “eye of a needle” in Matthew 19:24 refers to a narrow gate in Jerusalem, despite lacking historical evidence to support this claim.

Verbal Parallelomania

Verbal parallelomania involves claiming links and dependencies of meaning based on verbal parallels alone without substantial contextual or semantic support. For instance, equating the “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 with any instance of “rock” found in the Old Testament without considering the specific context and usage is an example of this fallacy.

Linkage of Language and Mentality

This fallacy assumes that language and thought processes are inseparably linked, leading to the confusion of linguistic expressions with mental constructs. An example is concluding that the Hebrew language inherently shapes the Hebrew people’s perception of God’s actions due to the unique structure of Hebrew verbs.

False Assumptions About Technical Meaning

False assumptions about technical meaning occur when one assumes that a word always has a technical, specialized meaning whenever it is used. For instance, believing that “apostle” always refers to one of the twelve apostles rather than recognizing its broader usage for messengers or envoys is a false assumption about technical meaning.

Problems Surrounding Synonyms/Componential Analysis

Misunderstanding the degree of synonymy between words, either overstating or understating their semantic equivalence, is another common fallacy. An example is treating agape and phileo in Greek as completely interchangeable or as having rigidly distinct meanings without considering context.

Selective and Prejudicial Use of Evidence

Selective and prejudicial use of evidence involves selectively using evidence to support a particular interpretation while ignoring contrary evidence. For example, using only positive references to “wine” in the Bible to argue for its beneficial nature, while disregarding negative references, exemplifies this fallacy.

Unwarranted Semantic Disjunctions/Restrictions

This fallacy occurs when one forces an either/or choice on a word’s meaning when both meanings could be valid in context. For instance, insisting that “faith” in James 2 must refer exclusively to intellectual assent and not considering its broader implications of trust and action is an example of unwarranted semantic disjunctions/restrictions.

Unwarranted Restriction of the Semantic Field

Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field involves limiting a word's semantic range more narrowly than justified by its usage in various contexts. For example, restricting the Greek word kosmos to mean only “world system” rather than considering its broader range, including “universe” and “humanity,” is a fallacy.

Unwarranted Adoption of an Expanded Semantic Field (Illegitimate Totality Transfer)

This fallacy occurs when one imposes all possible meanings of a word in every occurrence, leading to an overly broad interpretation. Assuming logos in John 1:1 encompasses all meanings of the word, including “reason,” “speech,” and “logic,” rather than its specific theological context, exemplifies this fallacy.

Problems Relating to the Semitic Background of the Greek New Testament

Overemphasizing the Semitic roots of Greek New Testament words without considering their Hellenistic context is another common fallacy. An example is insisting that shalom influences the Greek eirene to always mean comprehensive peace, rather than recognizing its usage in the Greek-speaking world.

Unwarranted Neglect of Distinguishing Peculiarities of a Corpus

This fallacy occurs when one assumes that a word’s usage by one biblical author applies uniformly across all biblical texts. Believing Paul's use of “justification” in Romans must be understood identically in James without considering each author’s unique theological context is an example of this fallacy.

Unwarranted Linking of Sense and Reference

Unwarranted linking of sense and reference involves confusing the “sense” (meaning) of a word with its “referent” (object) and assuming they are always identical. For example, assuming that “church” always refers to the institutional church whenever used in the New Testament, ignoring contexts where it refers to the assembly or gathering of believers, is an example of this fallacy.

By understanding and avoiding these word-study fallacies, interpreters can engage in more accurate and faithful biblical exegesis, ensuring that their interpretations align with the intended meaning of the biblical text.

Grammatical Fallacies

Definition and Impact

Grammatical fallacies occur when interpreters misunderstand or misapply grammatical and syntactical rules in the biblical text, leading to incorrect interpretations. These fallacies are generally less frequent than word-study fallacies because fewer people engage in the grammatical analysis of biblical languages, particularly Greek, the original language of the New Testament. However, even among scholars and students who do study biblical grammar, errors can still occur. The impact of grammatical fallacies is significant, as they can lead to misunderstandings of key theological concepts and distort the intended meaning of Scripture.

Proper grammar and syntax are crucial for accurate biblical interpretation. The rules governing tense, mood, voice, and syntax help clarify the relationships between words and phrases within sentences. Misinterpreting these elements can lead to serious exegetical errors, affecting the overall understanding of biblical texts.

Types of Grammatical Fallacies

The following are common types of grammatical fallacies, along with their definitions and examples.

Tense and Mood Fallacies

1. The Aorist Tense

The aorist tense fallacy occurs when interpreters presume that the aorist tense always refers to a “one-time” past event. In Greek, the aorist tense is often used to describe a simple action, but it does not necessarily indicate a one-time occurrence. For example, interpreting every instance of the aorist tense in the New Testament as a one-time historical event can lead to misunderstandings. The aorist can describe repeated actions, general truths, or actions without a specified duration, depending on the context.

2. The First Person Aorist Subjunctive

This fallacy involves viewing the first person aorist subjunctive as always indicating a true, deliberative force. The first person aorist subjunctive can express various nuances, including potentiality or intent, but it is not limited to deliberation. Misinterpreting this mood can lead to incorrect conclusions about the intentions or actions described in the text.

3. The Middle Voice

The middle voice fallacy assumes that the middle voice always connotes a reflexive action or suggests that the subject acts of itself. In Greek, the middle voice can indicate reflexive action, but it can also imply other nuances, such as personal involvement or interest. Overgeneralizing the middle voice to mean reflexivity in every instance can obscure the intended meaning of the text.

Syntax Fallacies

1. Conditionals

Syntax fallacies related to conditionals occur when interpreters misunderstand the protasis (“if” clause) and apodosis (“then” clause) relationships in conditional statements. For example, taking the protasis in first-class conditional statements as always indicating something true in the ultimate sense can be misleading. First-class conditionals often assume the condition for the sake of argument but do not necessarily reflect reality. Similarly, viewing third-class conditional statements as indicating a degree of possibility for fulfillment can also be erroneous. Third-class conditionals generally express potential situations without implying specific probabilities.

2. The Article

The article fallacy involves interpreting the Greek article in terms of the English article, leading to misunderstandings. Greek articles do not function identically to English articles and can have varied implications depending on context. For instance, interpreting the presence or absence of the Greek article to imply definiteness or indefiniteness, as in English, can result in errors. Additionally, extending the function of grammatical rules like the Granville Sharp Rule or Colwell Rule beyond their intended scope can distort the interpretation of passages.

3. Relationship of Tenses

Misunderstanding the relationship of verb tenses between clauses is another common syntax fallacy. Each verb tense in Greek conveys specific aspects of time and aspect (the nature of the action). Inadequately distinguishing these relationships can lead to incorrect interpretations of events or actions described in the text. For example, failing to recognize the significance of the present tense in one clause and its relationship to an aorist tense in another can obscure the intended sequence or nature of actions.

By recognizing and avoiding these grammatical fallacies, interpreters can enhance their understanding of the biblical text and ensure that their interpretations are more accurate and faithful to the original languages. Proper attention to grammar and syntax helps maintain the integrity of biblical exegesis and promotes sound theological conclusions.

Logical Fallacies

Definition and Impact

Logical fallacies occur when interpreters use faulty reasoning in their approach to biblical texts. Logic plays a crucial role in biblical interpretation as it ensures that conclusions drawn from the text are sound and consistent with the intended message. The basic laws of logic—such as the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and the Law of the Excluded Middle—serve as foundational principles for reasoning. Violations of these laws can lead to flawed interpretations and theological errors. Understanding and avoiding logical fallacies helps maintain the integrity of exegesis and promotes accurate understanding of Scripture.

Types of Logical Fallacies

The following are common types of logical fallacies, along with their definitions and examples.

False Disjunctions

False disjunctions occur when interpreters permit only an either/or position on an idea, making the various sides of an argument mutually exclusive when such a logical constraint is unnecessary. For example, claiming that Jesus is either fully human or fully divine, but not both, constitutes a false disjunction. Christian theology maintains that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, a concept known as the hypostatic union.

Failure to Recognize Distinctions

This fallacy involves linking two ideas together in all aspects simply because they share similarities in certain aspects. For instance, equating the roles of “pastor” and “teacher” in Ephesians 4:11 without recognizing the distinct functions each role may have within the church is a failure to recognize distinctions. While there can be overlap, the New Testament often distinguishes between different spiritual gifts and offices.

Over-simplified Logic Ruling

Over-simplified logic ruling assumes the validity of a proposition based solely on an explanation deemed to be “logical,” without proper substantiation. For example, asserting that because God is love, He cannot be just, oversimplifies the complex nature of God's attributes. Both attributes are true and coexist within the character of God.

Selective (Partial) Evidence

Selective (partial) evidence involves relying on a subset of evidence to represent the whole, ignoring contrary evidence. For instance, using only verses that emphasize God's mercy to argue against the concept of divine judgment, while ignoring passages that speak of God's justice and wrath, is selective use of evidence.

Improperly Handled Syllogisms

Improperly handled syllogisms occur when interpreters pair multiple statements of logic in such a way that infers connections between the pairings that do not exist. For example, stating, “All Pharisees are religious leaders. Jesus criticized religious leaders. Therefore, Jesus criticized all Pharisees,” misapplies the syllogistic logic. While some Pharisees were criticized by Jesus, not all were.

Negative Inferences

Negative inferences assume that if a proposition is true, then the negative inference of that proposition must also be true. For example, concluding that because salvation is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9), good works are irrelevant, overlooks the biblical teaching that good works are a fruit of genuine faith (James 2:14–26).

Worldview Confusion

Worldview confusion occurs when interpreters assume that their personal experiences and interpretation of reality are an appropriate framework for interpreting the biblical text. For example, interpreting biblical teachings on wealth and poverty solely through the lens of contemporary Western materialism can skew the understanding of biblical principles regarding stewardship and contentment.

Question Framing

Question framing imposes a prior understanding of a text in the way questions are framed about the text, leading the answers toward the prior understanding. For instance, asking, “Why did Paul hate women?” when examining his teachings on gender roles presupposes an antagonistic attitude that may not be supported by the text itself.

Confusion of Truth and Accuracy

This fallacy assumes that the question of truth is a matter of precision and accuracy, so that if a statement is not precise, it is not accurate and therefore not true. For example, interpreting Jesus' parables as literal historical accounts rather than illustrative stories to convey spiritual truths confuses truth with historical accuracy.

Purely Emotive Appeals

Purely emotive appeals assume that emotional appeals based on sincerity and conviction can supplant the role of reason and logic. For instance, claiming that a particular doctrine must be true because it “feels right” or “brings comfort” without supporting it with biblical evidence exemplifies this fallacy.

Unwarranted Generalizations and Overspecifications

This fallacy involves using one particular example to extrapolate a generalization that is then applied universally. For instance, concluding that because one church practiced a particular worship style, all early churches must have done the same, is an unwarranted generalization.

Unwarranted Associative Jumps

Unwarranted associative jumps allow a word or phrase to trigger an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no explicit relation to the text but is then used to interpret the text. For example, interpreting the “armor of God” in Ephesians 6:10–18 as literal military equipment rather than metaphorical descriptions of spiritual preparedness is an unwarranted associative jump.

False Statements

False statements involve accepting or making assertions that are self-contradictory, factually wrong, or that violate a law of logic. For instance, claiming that “God can create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it” is a self-contradictory statement that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The Non Sequitur

The non sequitur fallacy assumes that a statement or conclusion logically flows from a previous statement without proper cause or connection. For example, concluding that because the Bible was written in ancient times, it cannot have relevance for modern issues, is a non sequitur.

Cavalier Dismissal

Cavalier dismissal assumes that an argument has been sufficiently answered when, in fact, it has just been written off and the interpretation redirected. For instance, dismissing the doctrine of the Trinity as “too complicated to understand” without engaging with the theological arguments is a cavalier dismissal.

Equivocal Argumentation

Equivocal argumentation overreaches the implications of an argument beyond what it proves, making the argument seem conclusive or decisive on some level. For example, using the presence of figurative language in the Bible to argue that the entire Bible should be interpreted figuratively is an equivocal argument.

Inadequate Analogy

Inadequate analogy supposes that a particular analogy is relevant to a text or theme when that analogy is actually inadequate or inappropriate. For example, comparing the Trinity to a three-leaf clover may be helpful in some respects but is inadequate for capturing the complexity of the doctrine.

Emphatic Appeals

Emphatic appeals assume that statements like “obviously,” “clearly,” and other emphatic assertions add real validation to the argument. For instance, stating “Obviously, Jesus never intended for his teachings to be taken literally” without providing supporting evidence is an emphatic appeal.

Simplistic Appeals to Authority

Simplistic appeals to authority assume that appeals to authorities (scholars, pastors, authors, speakers, etc.) constitute a justifiable reason or sufficient validation for a particular interpretation of the text. For example, arguing that a theological position is correct because a respected pastor believes it, without considering the biblical evidence, is a simplistic appeal to authority.

Irrelevant Argumentation

Irrelevant argumentation poses arguments not relevant to the subject under discussion to discredit or bolster a particular position or to promote personal credibility or engender distrust in the opponent. Examples include attacks on one's character, reputation, education (argumentum ad hominem), or using inconsequential factoids and aphorisms to distract from the main issue.

By understanding and avoiding these logical fallacies, interpreters can ensure that their conclusions are grounded in sound reasoning and consistent with the biblical text. This promotes more accurate and faithful interpretations and helps maintain the integrity of biblical exegesis.

Presuppositional and Historical Fallacies

Definition and Impact

Presuppositional and historical fallacies occur when interpreters allow their biases and preconceived notions or faulty historical reconstructions to skew their understanding of biblical texts. Presuppositions—preconceived beliefs and assumptions—can significantly influence the way a person interprets Scripture. Historical reconstructions, while valuable for understanding the context of biblical events, can become problematic when they are speculative or when they overshadow the text itself. Being aware of these fallacies is crucial for accurate exegesis and interpretation, as they can distort the intended meaning of the text and lead to doctrinal errors.

The influence of presuppositions is profound, as every interpreter brings some level of preunderstanding to the text. This preunderstanding can be shaped by cultural, theological, and personal biases. Similarly, historical reconstructions, while intended to provide context, can sometimes introduce inaccuracies if not handled carefully. Therefore, it is essential for interpreters to be aware of their biases and approach the text with sensitivity and an openness to the text's own voice.

Types of Presuppositional Fallacies

Omission of Distanciation 

The omission of distanciation occurs when interpreters fail to separate their own beliefs, ideologies, or philosophies from the biblical text, reading their theology into the Scripture rather than letting the text speak for itself. For example, an interpreter who strongly believes in prosperity theology might read every blessing mentioned in the Bible as a promise of material wealth, ignoring the broader context of spiritual and communal blessings. This failure to achieve distanciation leads to a biased and often inaccurate interpretation.

Neglecting Bible Storyline

Neglecting the Bible storyline involves discarding the premise that all Scripture contributes to the overarching narrative of God's redemptive work. This fallacy occurs when interpretations disrupt the unity and coherence of the Bible’s overall message. For instance, interpreting the laws in Leviticus as independent of the narrative of God's covenant relationship with Israel and His redemptive plan through Christ ignores the broader biblical storyline. Such neglect can lead to fragmented and isolated interpretations that miss the text's larger theological context.

Working Outside the Bible’s “Givens”

Working outside the Bible’s “givens” means imposing a social, cultural, or theological agenda on the text that is not supported by the text itself. This might involve reading contemporary social issues into the text or interpreting passages to fit a particular political or ideological perspective. For example, interpreting biblical teachings on marriage solely through the lens of modern Western notions of romance and individualism can distort the biblical understanding of marriage as a covenantal and communal relationship. This approach imposes external frameworks on the text, leading to skewed interpretations.

Types of Historical Fallacies

Uncontrolled Historical Reconstruction

Uncontrolled historical reconstruction occurs when speculative historical reconstructions are placed above the biblical text. This can happen when interpreters prioritize hypothetical historical scenarios over the explicit teachings and context of Scripture. For instance, constructing an elaborate historical background for the early church that contradicts the New Testament’s account of church practices and beliefs exemplifies this fallacy. While historical context is important, it should not override the clear meaning and message of the text.

Fallacies of Causation

Fallacies of causation involve accepting causative explanations for events that are not supported by the text. This can include inferred, oversimplified, re-ordered, uncorrelated, or imaginary causes. For example, claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was directly caused by the Jews' rejection of Jesus, without considering other historical, political, and social factors, oversimplifies and misrepresents the complexity of historical causation. Such fallacies can lead to reductionist interpretations that ignore the multifaceted nature of historical events.

Motivational Fallacy

The motivational fallacy assumes knowledge about the motives or reasons behind a biblical writer’s words or actions beyond what the text explicitly states. For instance, suggesting that Paul wrote his letters primarily to gain personal power or influence within the early church, without textual evidence to support this claim, exemplifies this fallacy. This approach imposes speculative motives on the authors, leading to interpretations that may not align with the text’s intended message.

Conceptual Parallelomania

Conceptual parallelomania involves claiming links and dependencies of meaning based solely on conceptual parallels, often seeing parallels in everything. This fallacy can lead to overinterpreting similarities between biblical texts and other ancient literature or cultural concepts. For example, assuming that every instance of “light” in the Bible must correspond to a concept of enlightenment found in other ancient Near Eastern texts, without considering the specific context and usage within the Bible, is an example of this fallacy. Such an approach can obscure the unique message and themes of the biblical text.

By understanding and avoiding these presuppositional and historical fallacies, interpreters can engage with the biblical text more accurately and faithfully. Recognizing the influence of biases and the limitations of historical reconstructions helps maintain the integrity of biblical exegesis and promotes a clearer understanding of Scripture.

Conclusion

Summary of Key Points

In this exploration of exegetical fallacies, we have examined various ways in which interpreters can misinterpret biblical texts. These fallacies include word-study fallacies, grammatical fallacies, logical fallacies, and presuppositional and historical fallacies. Each type of fallacy represents a different way that misinterpretation can occur, whether through misunderstanding the meaning of words, misapplying grammatical rules, using faulty reasoning, or allowing biases and speculative historical reconstructions to influence interpretation.

The importance of avoiding exegetical fallacies cannot be overstated. Misinterpretations can lead to theological misunderstandings, doctrinal errors, and practices that deviate from the true message of Scripture. Accurate biblical interpretation is essential for maintaining the integrity of biblical teaching and promoting sound theology. It is crucial for interpreters to recognize these fallacies and adopt accurate methods of interpretation, ensuring that their conclusions are consistent with the intended meaning of the biblical text.

Final Thoughts

The process of biblical exegesis requires ongoing vigilance. Even the most well-intentioned interpreters can fall into the trap of exegetical fallacies if they are not careful. This vigilance involves a constant awareness of the principles of language, grammar, logic, and context. It also requires a willingness to question one's own presuppositions and biases, approaching the text with humility and openness to its message.

Engaging with scholarly resources and continuous learning is vital for accurate interpretation. Scholars and experts in biblical studies provide valuable insights and guidance that can help avoid common pitfalls in exegesis. By consulting a variety of sources, including commentaries, lexicons, grammatical guides, and scholarly articles, interpreters can gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the text.

Moreover, continuous learning ensures that interpreters stay updated with the latest developments and methodologies in biblical scholarship. This ongoing education helps refine interpretive skills and promotes a more accurate and faithful engagement with Scripture.

Avoiding exegetical fallacies is critically essential for accurate biblical interpretation. By recognizing and addressing these fallacies, Bible students can ensure that their interpretations are grounded in sound principles and consistent with the intended message of the text. This requires ongoing vigilance, engagement with scholarly resources, and a commitment to continuous learning. Through these efforts, Christians can contribute to a deeper and more faithful understanding of Scripture, fostering sound theology and practice within the Christian community.

Notes 

1.  D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996). See further, William D. Barrick, “Exegetical Fallacies: Common Interpretive Mistakes Every Student Must Avoid,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 19.1 (Spring 2008) 15–27.