Making God Say What We Want
Language Words will show as: Original language, (transliteration), meaning.
I depend on the Holy Spirit to fully understand and faithfully teach the Truth of God’s Word, while continually testing my understanding against God’s Word.
✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
There is something seriously wrong when people begin changing what God actually said to accommodate what they want Him to say. It happens when a particular commandment becomes inconvenient, when a teaching challenges a cherished belief, or when Scripture addresses something that people would rather not deal with. Instead of examining their beliefs and allowing God’s Word to correct them, they begin looking for ways to make the Scriptures agree with what they have already decided to believe. They change definitions, remove context, create explanations, and sometimes even give entirely new meanings to words. Before long, what they are teaching may sound biblical, but is it what God actually said?
This is the problem with what I call “Mamby, Pamby Religion”. It wants a god who agrees with its preferences, approves of its decisions, and never says anything that might make people uncomfortable. It wants the blessings without the responsibilities, the promises without the instructions, and the comforting parts of Scripture without having to deal with anything that challenges its thinking. And when God’s Word doesn’t cooperate, well, something must be done about that, mustn’t it? So people begin making adjustments.
But there is a fundamental problem with that approach. God’s Word was not given to us for editing. We are not the authors, owners, or authorities over what He has revealed. Our responsibility is to understand what He said, not manufacture a message that better suits our preferences.
And this is one reason I want to examine the actual Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek wording in Scripture. English translations can sometimes use the same English word for different original-language words, or choose an English expression that does not communicate all the distinctions present in the original. Sometimes a word has several possible meanings, and only its grammatical form and context establish which meaning belongs in that particular passage. We can’t simply accept an English expression and assume it tells us everything the original author communicated. We need to examine the actual words.
When God says not to add or take away
Let’s begin in the Torah, with Deuteronomy 4:2. Moses gives Israel a direct instruction:
לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ
Lo tosifu al-haddavar asher anokhi metzavveh etkhem, velo tigre’u mimmennu; The Hebrew translation says: You shall not add to the word that I am commanding you, and you shall not take away from it.
The first expression, תֹסִפוּ (tosifu), comes from the root יסף (yasaf), which means to add, increase, or do something further. The second, תִגְרְעוּ (tigre’u), comes from גרע (gara), meaning to diminish, reduce, or take away.
Notice that Moses connects this instruction directly to the commandments YHWH gave Israel. The concern is not whether someone can explain a commandment or help another person understand it. The concern is whether someone adds requirements to what God commanded or removes something God established.
That distinction matters because religious systems can do both. They can take a human rule, attach religious significance to it, and eventually treat it as though God Himself commanded it. They can also take something God did command and develop an explanation that makes it appear unnecessary. Either way, people end up following a modified version of what God gave.
Proverbs 30:5-6 gives us another important use of this same Hebrew root. The passage says that every word of God is tested, and then warns:
אַל־תּוֹסְףְּ עַל־דְּבָרָיו
Al tosaf al-devarav. Do not add to His words.
The expression תּוֹסְףְּ (tosaf) comes from the same root יסף (yasaf). The warning continues by saying that God may reprove the person and that person be found a liar.
Why is that important? Because adding something to God’s message and then presenting it as though God said it makes the speaker responsible for words that did not originate with Him.
There is a difference between saying, “This is what I understand this passage to mean,” and declaring, “God says this,” when the passage does not actually establish that conclusion. We should never confuse our explanation with God’s revelation.
When people speak their own thoughts in God’s name
Now let’s look at Jeremiah 23:16-17. This passage is particularly revealing because YHWH is addressing prophets who were claiming to speak for Him.
The Hebrew of Jeremiah 23:16 includes:
חֲזוֹן לִבָּם יְדַבֵּרוּ לֹא מִפִּי יְהוָה
Chazon libbam yedabberu, lo mippi YHWH. The meaning is: They speak the vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of YHWH.
The expression חֲזוֹן (chazon) means vision. לִבָּם (libbam) means their heart, which in Hebrew thought can refer to the inner person, including thought, intention, understanding, and will. The verb יְדַבֵּרוּ (yedabberu) means they speak. The expression מִפִּי יְהוָה (mippi YHWH) means from the mouth of YHWH.
YHWH is identifying the source of their message. It originated in their own thinking, not in what He had spoken.
And notice that the verse begins with a warning not to listen to these prophets. The Hebrew expression מַהְבִּלִים(mahbillim) describes them as making the people worthless or empty, leading them astray through their messages. This is not simply a matter of choosing an imperfect English word. The Hebrew itself identifies a serious problem with what these prophets were doing.
Verse 17 explains that they were telling those who despised YHWH’s Word that peace would be theirs. They were reassuring people who followed the stubbornness of their own hearts that calamity would not come upon them.
In other words, these prophets were giving people the reassurance they wanted rather than faithfully communicating what YHWH had said.
Then verse 21 makes the situation even clearer: לֹא־שָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת־הַנְּבִאִים וְהֵם רָצוּ לֹא־דִבַּרְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם וְהֵם נִבָּאוּ
Lo shalachti et-hannevi’im, vehem ratzu; lo dibbarti aleihem, vehem nibba’u. I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.
That is quite a distinction. They were presenting themselves as messengers of YHWH, but He says He had neither sent them nor spoken to them. They had a message, but it was not His message.
And that is precisely why we must be careful when people claim to speak for God. Religious language, spiritual expressions, and confident declarations do not establish the source of a message. The fact that someone says, “God told me,” does not automatically make what follows God’s Word.
We need to examine what is being claimed and whether it agrees with what God has actually revealed.
When people change the definition of good and evil
Isaiah 5:20 gives us another example of what happens when people begin changing the way they identify things.
The Hebrew reads: הוֹי הָאֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע
Hoy ha’omerim lara tov, velatov ra.
The meaning is: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
The word טוֹב(tov) means good, and רַע(ra) means evil, bad, or harmful, according to context. The expression הָאֹמְרִים(ha’omerim) means those who say or declare.
The remainder of the verse describes people who put darkness for light and light for darkness, and bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Notice what Isaiah is exposing. They are changing the way things are identified, not changing the actual nature of those things. Calling something good does not make it good, just as calling something evil does not make it evil.
And the surrounding context is important. Isaiah 5:24 identifies the problem as rejecting the Torah of YHWH of Hosts and despising the word of the Holy One of Israel. The people had rejected God’s instruction, and the preceding woes expose their injustice, pride, and distorted judgment.
This is not simply a matter of people having different preferences. It is a reversal of the distinctions established by God.
We see why this matters when religious thinking begins accommodating whatever people want to accept. Rather than examining their behavior against God’s standard, they change the description of the behavior. Something that Scripture condemns is given a more acceptable name, and something Scripture commends is portrayed as undesirable or outdated.
But changing a name does not change the thing itself.
The Aramaic warning about changing law
There is also an interesting passage in the Aramaic portion of Daniel that deserves our attention. Daniel 7:25 describes a power within the prophetic vision that speaks against the Most High and intends to change times and law.
The Aramaic expression is: וְיִסְבַּר לְהַשְׁנָיָה זִמְנִין וְדָת
Veyisbar lehashnayah zimnin vedath.
The expression וְיִסְבַּר(veyisbar) conveys the idea of thinking, intending, or setting one’s mind to something. לְהַשְׁנָיָה(lehashnayah) means to change or alter. זִמְנִין(zimnin) means times or appointed periods, and דָת(dath) means law or decree.
The passage describes an intention to alter established times and law. We need to respect the prophetic setting and the particular power being described rather than turning this verse into a general accusation against everyone with whom we disagree. Nevertheless, the Aramaic wording makes the idea of altering established law quite clear.
It is worth considering alongside the warnings in the Torah. God establishes what He commands, and human beings do not acquire authority over His instructions simply because they wish to establish something different.
When tradition takes precedence over God’s command
Now let’s move into the New Testament and examine something Jesus confronted directly. Mark 7:6-13 is one of the clearest passages showing what happens when human religious practices interfere with God’s instructions.
Jesus refers to Isaiah’s prophecy and then addresses the religious leaders who were holding to traditions handed down by men. In Mark 7:8-9, He says they were leaving the commandment of God and holding fast to human tradition, setting aside God’s commandment in order to maintain their own tradition.
He then gives a specific example involving the commandment to honor one’s father and mother.
The practice involved something called Κορβᾶν (Korban), which Jesus explains with the Greek word Δῶρον (Dōron), meaning gift. Korban comes from the Hebrew קָרְבָּן (qorbān), meaning offering, oblation, sacrifice. It comes from קָרַב(qārav), meaning to approach, to draw near, to come near.
The problem was not that giving an offering to God was wrong. The problem was that this religious declaration could be used to prevent a person from providing for his father or mother. A human religious practice had become a way of avoiding a responsibility established in God’s commandment.
Now examine Jesus’ words in Mark 7:13:
(Greek) ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν
Akyrountes ton logon tou Theou tē paradosei hymōn; ἀκυροῦντες (akyrountes) means making void, nullifying, rendering powerless or invalidating. τὸν λόγον (ton logon) means the word, the message. τοῦ Θεοῦ (tou Theou) means of God. τῇ παραδόσει (tē paradosei) means by the tradition. ὑμῶν (hymōn) means your.
Jesus is saying that they were making God’s Word ineffective through their tradition.
The Greek word παράδοσις (paradosis) means tradition, something handed down. The word itself does not mean something evil. What matters is whether what is handed down agrees with God’s instructions or contradicts them.
Jesus identifies the actual problem. Their tradition was interfering with a commandment of God, and He says they were doing many similar things.
That is a serious warning for religious institutions and individuals alike. A practice does not become God’s commandment because it has been maintained for generations. Nor does something become biblical simply because a teacher can attach a Scripture reference to it. We must examine whether the practice is actually supported by what God said.
When people want a different gospel
Paul addresses another form of this problem in Galatians 1:6-9. He is astonished that the believers are turning away so quickly from the One who called them in the grace of Christ and are turning toward a different gospel.
The Greek expression in verse 6 is:
μετατίθεσθε, Metatithesthe.
It comes from μετατίθημι (metatithēmi), meaning to transfer, change position, or move from one position to another. In this context, Paul is describing their departure from the message they had received.
He then identifies what is happening in verse 7. There are people troubling them and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ.
The Greek verb is μεταστρέψαι (metastrepsai), from μεταστρέφω (metastrephō), meaning to turn, change, or distort. The object being distorted is the gospel of Christ.
Paul’s concern is not that someone has asked a question about a difficult passage. He is confronting an alteration of the gospel message itself.
In verses 8-9, Paul repeats his warning that even if he or an angel from heaven should proclaim a message contrary to what they had received, that message is not to be accepted.
Notice what Paul is establishing. The authority of the messenger does not give permission to change the message. Even a claim involving an angel does not make a different gospel acceptable.
That is important because people can become impressed by the person delivering a message, the spiritual language being used, or the apparent authority behind a particular teaching. But none of those things changes the responsibility to examine the message itself.
A message does not become true because it sounds spiritual, and it does not become God’s message because someone attaches the name of Jesus to it.
When people gather teachers to satisfy their desires
Now let’s look at 2 Timothy 4:3-4. This passage describes something that happens when people no longer want to hear teaching that challenges what they prefer to believe.
The Greek wording of verse 3 begins with:
τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ ἀνέξονται, Tēs hygiainousēs didaskalias ouk anexontai.
The word ὑγιαινούσης (hygiainousēs) means healthy, sound, free from corruption. It describes teaching that is spiritually healthy and sound in its truth. διδασκαλίας (didaskalias) means teaching, instruction, while ἀνέξονται (anexontai) means they will endure, tolerate, or put up with. In other words, Paul is describing people who will no longer tolerate teaching that keeps them rooted in sound truth.
Paul says there will be a time when people will not endure sound teaching. But he doesn’t stop there. He explains what they will do instead.
The next expression is:
κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας, Kata tas idias epithymias.
According to their own desires.
The word ἰδίας (idias) means their own, and ἐπιθυμίας (epithymias) means desires, cravings, strong wants. Paul then uses ἐπισωρεύσουσιν (episōreusousin), meaning they will heap up, pile up, accumulate, followed by διδασκάλους (didaskalous), meaning teachers.
Notice the picture Paul paints. These people are piling up teachers, choosing one after another, not because those teachers faithfully teach God’s truth, but because they satisfy what the listeners themselves want to hear.
Then comes the expression:
κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοήν (knēthomenoi tēn akoēn).
The word κνηθόμενοι (knēthomenoi) means itching, being tickled, and τὴν ἀκοήν (tēn akoēn) means the hearing, the ear. Paul gives us the picture of people whose ears itch for words that please them. They want teaching that feels good to hear, teaching that scratches exactly where they want it scratched!
Paul continues in verse 4, showing where this leads. They turn their hearing away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
This is not simply about wanting an entertaining teacher. It is about choosing what one will believe according to personal desires rather than accepting what God has said. Their preferences determine which teachers they welcome and which truths they refuse to hear.
They want teachers who will tell them what they want to hear.
And that is precisely the kind of religion we are discussing. When a person chooses a teacher according to whether that teacher agrees with personal preferences, rather than whether the teaching agrees with Scripture, the authority has shifted. God’s Word is no longer the standard by which everything is judged. Personal desire has taken its place.
When Scripture itself is twisted
Second Peter 3:15-16 gives us another important warning. Peter refers to Paul’s letters and acknowledges that some things in them are difficult to understand. He then describes what certain people do with those writings.
The Greek expression in verse 16 includes:
οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν, (Hoi amatheis kai astēriktoi streblousin).
The word ἀμαθεῖς (amatheis) means uninstructed, ignorant, without knowledge. ἀστήρικτοι (astēriktoi) means unstable, unsteadfast, not firmly established. Then comes στρεβλοῦσιν (streblousin), meaning they twist, distort, wrench out of shape.
That last word is particularly striking. Peter is not describing someone who simply reads a passage incorrectly. The picture is of someone twisting the words out of their proper shape, changing what the Scripture actually says.
Peter says they do this to Paul’s writings, just as they do the other Scriptures, and bring destruction upon themselves.
Notice something important here. Peter openly acknowledges that some of Paul’s writings are difficult to understand. He does not pretend every passage is simple. But difficulty does not give anyone permission to bend God’s Word until it says whatever they want it to say.
This is why careful study matters. We have to examine the actual words, their grammatical construction, the surrounding passage, and the complete thought being communicated and the context. When something is difficult, we study it. We cannot insert meanings that the words do not contain and then claim God said them.
There is another distinction we need to recognize. Peter describes people who are uninstructed and unstable. That does not mean every person who misunderstands Scripture is deliberately twisting it. Some genuinely lack understanding. Others have been taught incorrectly and are simply repeating what they were told. But whatever the cause, we have to return to the actual words of Scripture rather than allowing someone else’s explanation to take the place of what God said.
What does genuine religious practice look like?
James 1:26-27 gives us another useful distinction. The Greek word θρησκεία (thrēskeia) means religion, religious worship, religious observance. It describes the outward practice of one’s religious devotion.
James describes someone who considers himself religious but does not restrain his tongue. He says that person’s religious practice is worthless. He then describes pure and undefiled religious practice before God the Father through two specific actions: caring for orphans and widows in their affliction (time of trouble)and keeping oneself unstained by the world.
Notice the words James uses. καθαρά (kathara) means pure, clean, and ἀμίαντος (amiantos) means undefiled, unstained, unpolluted. These are not words describing how impressive a person’s worship looks. James brings the matter straight into everyday life: what comes out of our mouths, how we treat those who need help, and whether we keep ourselves free from the world’s corruption.
This is important because religious activity and faithfulness to God are not automatically the same thing. A person can participate in religious services, know religious customs, and speak religious language while failing to practice what God commands.
James directs our attention away from appearances and toward the evidence of genuine devotion. What does our faith produce in the way we speak, the way we treat others, and the way we conduct ourselves?
That is something worth considering when we examine religious systems. Beautiful buildings, elaborate ceremonies, impressive titles, and carefully prepared sermons cannot establish that the message being taught is true. Religious appearance is not the measure of faithfulness. God’s instructions are.
The real problem: Who, exactly, gets to determine what God means?
There is a question that runs through all these passages, and it is one we need to answer honestly. Are we allowing God to establish what we believe, or are we allowing our own preferences to determine what we think God should have said?
When people make God’s Word more restrictive than He made it, they add to it. When they remove an instruction because it is inconvenient, they take away from it. When they call something good that God identifies as evil, they change the standard. When they elevate traditions above commandments, they put human practices in a position they were never given. And when they gather teachers who tell them exactly what they want to hear, they have made their own desires the authority over God’s message.
These are different actions, and Scripture addresses them in their particular contexts. We should not confuse them or pretend they are all the same offense. But they share one serious problem: people are no longer allowing God’s revealed Word to establish what is true. They are deciding what they want to believe first and then trying to make Scripture agree with them.
And that brings us to something else we must be careful about: the words themselves.
Suppose an English translation uses the same word for several different Hebrew or Greek words. A reader may assume those original words all mean exactly the same thing. They may not. On the other hand, one Hebrew or Greek word may have several possible meanings, but that does not mean we can choose whichever meaning makes our argument sound better. The grammar and context must determine which meaning belongs in that particular passage.
This is why we cannot build a teaching on an English word alone. We have to examine the original word, how it is used, how it functions in the sentence, and what the author is actually saying. A dictionary gives us possible meanings, but it does not give us permission to pick our favorite and run with it!
And we must be just as careful when studying the original languages. Knowing a Hebrew or Greek root does not automatically settle every question. Grammar, sentence structure, historical usage, and the author’s complete argument all matter. We cannot take one little piece of a word, stretch it until it says what we want, and then announce that we have discovered a hidden biblical truth.
The original languages are not secret codes, and they are not a license to invent meanings. They are the very languages in which the biblical authors communicated God’s message. Our responsibility is to understand what those words actually say, not to make them say something they never did.
Here is the bottom line: God’s Word is not supposed to be adjusted to fit our beliefs. Our beliefs are supposed to be examined and adjusted to fit God’s Word. We do not get to rewrite the instructions and then congratulate ourselves for following them!
We must be willing to let God’s Word disagree with us
The problem with Mamby, Pamby Religion is not that people ask questions or that they want to understand Scripture more deeply. Asking questions is part of serious study. Examining difficult passages is absolutely necessary. Discovering that an interpretation we held for years was incorrect is not a failure. Refusing to be corrected when the evidence shows us otherwise is the real problem.
There will be times when Scripture says something we do not particularly want to hear. There will be passages that challenge our assumptions, traditions, and personal preferences. There will be instructions that require us to reconsider how we think and live. But we cannot solve that discomfort by changing the meaning of the passage.
Nor should we assume that a teaching is correct simply because it makes us feel good. Comfort is not the measure of truth, just as discomfort is not proof that something is false.
We need to approach God’s Word with the willingness to be corrected, not with a predetermined conclusion that we expect Scripture to support. We need to examine what was actually written, consider the context, and be honest about what the text establishes and what it does not.
And that applies to every teacher, including me. I do not want anyone accepting something simply because I teach it. Examine the Scriptures for yourself. Examine the original wording. Test the explanation. If something is wrong, let God’s Word correct it.
The authority belongs to God, not to the person explaining His Word.
So, the next time someone tells you that God approves of something, ask where Scripture establishes that. When someone tells you a commandment no longer means what it says, examine the passage. When a religious tradition is presented as though it were a commandment, find out whether God actually commanded it. And when a teacher offers a message that sounds wonderfully comforting (or not), examine whether it is the message Scripture gives.
We must never become so attached to what we want to believe that we are unwilling to hear what God has actually said.
God’s Word does not need our permission to mean what it means. And it does not need to be changed to suit our preferences.
Mamby, Pamby Religion wants God to agree with us. Genuine faith requires us to be willing to agree with Him.
That is the difference between making God say what we want and allowing His Word to establish what we believe.
As unto the Lord God Almighty, YHWH.
✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
Prayer
Holy Father, we praise You for Your goodness, Your wisdom, Your righteousness, and Your unchanging truth. You alone are worthy of all honor, glory, and worship. Your Word is faithful, and Your understanding is beyond measure.
Father God, help us to love Your Word more than our own opinions. Give us humble hearts, discerning minds, and the courage to accept what You have said, even when it challenges what we believe. Keep us from changing Your words to suit our desires, and help us rightly understand and faithfully share Your truth. May everything we say and do honor You.
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
Don’t take my word for it. Like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. Open your Bible, study God’s Word for yourself, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. Don’t simply accept my conclusions. If what I’ve written agrees with Scripture, hold fast to it. If it doesn’t, let God’s Word be your final authority.
If you liked this message, please leave a positive comment. (All comments are monitored for spam and bots). I would love to hear from you! You don’t even have to register or sign in! Just click Comment at the bottom of any message. (comments are monitored only against spam)
© AMKCH 2026
All original images were done by duck.ai at my direction. If any of these people looks like you or someone you know, that is purely coincidental. They are not.
*** Namby-pamby Origin and History – A namby-pamby is a weak, insipid, spineless person. The expression first appears in 1725 as the title of a poem by Henry Carey (1687-1743).
✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
.