Teaching Critical Evaluation of Non-Biblical Examples and Illustrations
The Pedagogical Use of Earthly Illustrations
Jesus himself employed earthly illustrations to convey heavenly truths, yet he also warned that such illustrations have inherent limitations. When Nicodemus struggled to grasp the doctrine of regeneration, Jesus asked, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12). Adam Clarke observes that Christ "illustrated this new birth by a most expressive metaphor taken from earthly things," yet even this carefully chosen analogy proved insufficient for someone unprepared to receive it [1]. The passage establishes a fundamental principle: illustrations drawn from creation serve as pedagogical bridges, but they cannot bear unlimited theological weight.
The Function and Limits of Analogies
John Gill notes that when Christ spoke of "earthly things," he referred not to earthly doctrines—"for he was not of the earth, but from heaven"—but rather to "the more easy doctrines of the Gospel" delivered "in a plain and easy style, and illustrated by similes taken from earthly things, as from human birth, from the water, and from the wind" [5]. This distinction matters: the content remains heavenly, but the vehicle of communication accommodates human understanding. The illustration serves the doctrine; the doctrine does not derive from the illustration.
Calvin demonstrates this critical awareness when discussing the image of God in Genesis. While acknowledging that "there is something in man which refers to the Father and the Son, and the Spirit," he expresses hesitation about pressing analogies too far: "I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties" [4]. Here Calvin models the evaluative posture required: analogies may illuminate, but doctrinal definitions must rest on firmer exegetical ground than human speculation about correspondences.
The Danger of Imitative Examples
Isaiah's warning to the exiles illustrates another dimension of critical evaluation. Calvin notes that during the Babylonian captivity, "the Jews were constrained to behold daily the basest examples of idolatry, and might be led away to wicked imitation" [6]. The prophet therefore asked whether they had forgotten their instruction about God's nature. Not all examples merit imitation; some must be recognized and rejected. This applies equally to non-biblical illustrations in teaching: the mere presence of an example—whether from pagan philosophy, contemporary culture, or even church tradition—does not validate its theological content.
Chrysostom's approach to pagan philosophy demonstrates this evaluative stance. His homilies reference the atomistic philosophy of Democritus and Leucippus, and the teachings of Epicurus, but always with critical distance [3]. The Antiochian exegetical tradition that Chrysostom represented avoided both the excessive allegorizing of earlier periods and the rigid dogmatism that would follow, instead maintaining "a peculiar combination of circumstances" that enabled more careful textual work [8].
Teaching Discernment in Doctrine
Paul's warning to Timothy addresses the problem directly: "If any man teach otherwise," or teach "another doctrine, from that of the Bible, of Christ" [7]. The false teachers in view "despised dominion or government" and "encouraged disobedience to parents and masters." Their error lay not merely in poor illustrations but in substantive departure from apostolic teaching. This establishes the criterion: illustrations and examples must be evaluated against the standard of Scripture itself, not against their rhetorical effectiveness or cultural resonance.
The contrast between the old and new covenants in Hebrews provides a model for comparative evaluation. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown note that the new covenant is "very different from, and far superior to, the old covenant," which "only 'worked wrath' (Rom 4:15) through man's 'not regarding' it" [2]. The comparison serves a theological purpose, but the evaluation rests on revealed distinctions, not on human preference or cultural conditioning. Teachers must similarly ground their evaluations of non-biblical examples in scriptural categories rather than pragmatic considerations alone.
The task requires both humility and precision: recognizing that earthly illustrations serve genuine pedagogical purposes while maintaining that doctrinal authority resides in Scripture, not in the persuasive power of any human analogy.
Sources
- John (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on John 3:12: If I have told you earthly things - If, after I have illustrated this new birth by a most expressive metaphor taken from earthly things, and after all you believe not; how can you believe, should I tell you of heavenly things, in such language as angels use, where earthly images and illustrations can have no place? Or, if you, a teacher in Israel, do not understand the nature of such an earthly thing, or custom of the kingdom established over the Jewish nation, as being born of baptism, practised every day in the initiation of proselytes, how will you understand such ”
- Hebrews (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Hebrews 8:9: Not according to, &c.--very different from, and far superior to, the old covenant, which only "worked wrath" (Rom 4:15) through man's "not regarding" it. The new covenant enables us to obey by the Spirit's inward impulse producing love because of the forgiveness of our sins. made with--rather as Greek, "made to": the Israelites being only recipients, not coagents [ALFORD] with God. I took them by the hand--as a father takes his child by the hand to support and guide his steps. "There are three periods: (1) that of the promise; (2) that of the pedag”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians–Colossians–Thessalonians: moral character of heathenism.”—Meyer.—G.A.] 309 [Compare 1 Kings xviii. 27 , the locus classicus where Elijah uses his scathing irony against the priests of Baal.—G.A.] 310 [See Schaff’s History of the Christian Church , Vol. I., pp. 72–74, with Literature there noted.—G.A.] 311 [On Democritus and Leucippus, founders of the Atomistic philosophy, see Ueberweg’s Hist. of Philosophy (Amer. ed.), Vol. I., pp. 67–71; on Epicurus, Vol. I., pp. 205–207.—G.A.] 312 This was the instance in the Schools. Vid. Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hypot”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 5.31: and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Father and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the”
- John (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on John 3:11: If I have told you earthly things,.... Not that the doctrines he delivered were earthly ones; for he was not of the earth, but from heaven, and above all, and so spake not of the earth, but of heaven, Joh 3:31; and this doctrine of regeneration was an heavenly doctrine; and the thing itself required supernatural power, and grace from above: but either they were the more easy doctrines of the Gospel; or were delivered in a plain and easy style, and illustrated by similes taken from earthly things, as from human birth, from the water, and from the wind: and ye believe n”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. 3, section 8.32: we easily fall into it when any example is placed before our eyes. In consequence of mixing with the Babylonians during their captivity, the Jews were constrained to behold daily the basest examples of idolatry, and might be led away to wicked imitation. Isaiah therefore anticipates this at an early period, and warns them not to be carried away by the sight of such things. He asks, “Have they not been taught, and have they not learned who is God?” The greater part of commentators think that all the questions here put are a repetition of the s”
- 1 Timothy (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on 1 Timothy 6:3: If any man teach otherwise,.... Or another doctrine, as the Syriac version renders it; a doctrine different from what the apostle had now taught, concerning the duty of servants to their masters; as did the false teachers, who despised dominion or government; not only civil government, and so spoke evil of rulers and magistrates; and church government, and therefore reviled the apostles, elders, and pastors of churches; but family government, and encouraged disobedience to parents and masters; see Pe2 2:10 or teach another doctrine, from that of the Bible, of Chris”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew: I. The Place of Chrysostom in the History of Exegesis. The position held by Chrysostom in the history of exegesis is remarkable. Owing to a peculiar combination of circumstances he, more than any of the Fathers, was enabled to avoid the errors alike of the allegorizing and dogmatic tendencies. The former tendency was the prevalent one in the Christian Church in the Ante-Nicene period; the latter, especially in the West, became dominant during the Post-Nicene period, using for its own ends the earlier erroneous theory. Chrysostom represents the Antiochian r”