Social media has created a wide open door for public critique as well as for interaction with critics. But the impulse to spar with every detractor and the inability to “keep silent” is a sure sign of folly (Pro. 11:12). While I do not intend to take on every critique of my recent ACBC article, I do want to take the opportunity to highlight a few helpful biblical principles that arose from some who took umbrage with what I wrote. I believe this is a worthwhile opportunity to continue the conversation happening among biblical counselors, one to which I hope to contribute a little more light. To this end, I will answer five questions.
Question #1 — Is the concept of ‘counseling methods’ being read into Genesis 3?
While I grant that the term ‘counseling method’ is not included in Genesis 3 (or anywhere else in Scripture), I still do not believe that I have read this idea into the biblical text. I believe this is the case for one simple fact: the serpent is offering counsel as well as a method by which Eve and Adam might become like God. His claim was a lie, of course; nevertheless, the serpent told them the end game and advised them to eat the fruit that God had forbidden as a means of obtaining that end. If this isn’t a counseling method, then what is it? When someone gives advice to obtain a certain stated or unstated goal, then the action being suggested might legitimately be called a counseling method. This is what is happening in the Garden of Eden in Genesis chapter 3, therefore, the concept of counseling methods is included in the divinely inspired text.
Question #2 — Is the benefit of a biblical text limited to the original authorial intent?
I very much appreciated the emphasis of this particular criticism from Jared Poulton. Anyone stressing authorial intent for interpreting biblical texts has an ally in me! I couldn’t agree more with his statement, “All proper exegesis begins in the original context of the author. Human authorial intent is key. What was God originally saying by the Holy Spirit as he spoke through the original author to God’s people at that point in redemptive history?”[1] This is spot on. However, the conclusion from this right hermeneutical principle was to suggest that Moses was not attempting to warn Israel about counseling methodologies in Genesis 3 and, therefore, that text should not be used to “draw hard lines in counseling.”
There are at least three problems with this criticism. First, it presumes too much about Moses’ intentions. How do we know what Moses intended in Genesis 3? The answer, of course, is that we know Moses’ intent based on what Moses wrote. Therefore, if Moses documented deceptive counsel, noted the means utilized by the serpentine counselor, and recorded the ruin that it brought upon the first man and woman and the rest of the world, then readers should conclude that Moses did, in fact, intend to say something about the disastrous effects of deceptive counsel and forbidden counseling methods. If Moses was unconcerned about counseling methods in Genesis chapter 3, then to what other narrative in the Torah could we point that issues a clearer warning about counseling methods than this one? Furthermore, Moses clearly is burdened with God’s concern over counseling methods in other parts of the Pentateuch such as those who advise idolatry (Deut. 13:1-18) and the strict prohibition against consulting every medium, spiritist, and inquirer of the dead (Deut. 17:9-12).
A second problem with the criticism is that it seems to restrict the original author from intentionally communicating multiple purposes in a single text. As every godly parent knows, biblical instruction often intends a variety of blessings to those who hear. When I train my children to exercise self-control, I intend them to honor God, to serve others, and I know that if they listen, they will keep their own souls from countless troubles in later years. So, who is to say that Moses didn’t mean to tell us about how sin and evil entered into the world, about satanic deception, about the danger of reversing marriage roles, and, yes, even about the disaster that forbidden counseling methods can produce? I believe that the divine Author (God) must have intended these things through the human author (Moses), if for no other reason than the simple fact that this is what was clearly written into the biblical text.
Finally, this pushback also seems to mistake the singular interpretive meaning of the original author for the multitude of lessons that might be learned from what he wrote. What I mean is, even if Moses wasn’t fixated on teaching a lesson primarily about forbidden counseling methods, Genesis 3 would still be useful for learning that very lesson. In fact, Moses’ initial audience, along with their specific needs, was fairly narrow — one group of formerly enslaved Jewish desert-wanderers seeking a homeland filled with soon-to-be conquered idolaters. To restrict the usefulness of God’s words through Moses to a handful of lessons useful for the original people, place, and time that are now applicable to us only based on their historical claims, is to severely limit the relevance of the Scriptures. To be clear, I do not believe that Poulton means to limit God’s glory in the Scriptures, but the question must be asked, why, then, can Genesis 3 not provide wisdom for discerning current counseling methods?
Question #3 — Is this an exegetical method based on criticism?
Poulton also accused me of “constructing an exegetical method based on criticism.” What was meant by this is that, essentially, for the sake of condemning the counseling methods of clinically-informed brothers, I read into the biblical text what was not there (eisegesis) in order to make an argument supporting my view. But it’s helpful to remember that accusations are not arguments and facts speak louder than assertions. If my exegesis was unsound, then Poulton certainly failed to demonstrate this. No doubt, he made strong assertions. He utilized theological categories. He issued vague appeals to the authority of Old and New Testament scholars. But none of these qualify as a sound biblical rebuttal. If the article was worth decrying publicly, then it would have been useful to offer more insightful conclusions about Genesis chapter 3 than those Poulton claimed that I failed to give.
This actually highlights one of my greatest concerns for those who identify as biblical counselors, namely, the dearth of meaningful exegesis resulting in clarifying counseling implications. We must be able to draw insightful conclusions out of Scripture based on the language, grammar, syntax, and context of a given biblical passage. All public writing is fair game for public critique. So, if I committed eisegesis, then this should be demonstrated by sound argumentation, not merely asserted by fiat.
Question #4 — Is the argument invalid because it can be applied by other, competing theological viewpoints?
This complaint also arose concerning my article, “Between Bethel and Dan”. The reasoning has been that since the argument or illustration in use could be applied to almost any preferred theological position, then it must not be legitimate when used against clinically-informed biblical counseling. This misses two important points. First, in both articles, my goal was not to refute the finer points that I believe are problematic about the theology and methods of clinically-informed biblical counseling (CIBC). I have sought to deal with this in other instances.[2] So, if readers were looking for a refutation of specific components of CIBC, then I can understand their disappointment.
But also, this misses the fact that plenty of biblical illustrations and examples might be used in the cause of truth as well as [mis]used in support of error. For example, Jesus, in proverbial fashion, defended his and John’s ministry by saying, “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” (Matt. 11:19). In another instance, he said, “the tree is known by its fruit” (Matt 12:33). These are general statements that might be repeated to promote both truth and error. A Mormon might say, “A tree is known by its fruit. The fruit of our religion is large families. Therefore, our religion is a good tree.” A Catholic nun might say, “Our religious beliefs promote charity and good works toward the poor; therefore, our religion is true.” Both these conclusions would be wrong, of course; however, it doesn’t delegitimize the truth of the proverb itself. Trees are still known by their fruit. This saying is patently true and the illustration is valid, even though it might be misapplied by those promoting error. Nevertheless, it is easy to dismiss an illustration or the particular implication drawn from a passage of Scripture by noting the existence of other hypothetical illegitimate uses. What’s more difficult is to discern and explain why this particular use is unbiblical, why my particular application is invalid. I have yet to come across any discerning attempt at this harder work.
Question #5 — Is the problem a lack of experience with those who have known healing through these so-called ‘forbidden’ counseling methods?
In short, no, this is not the problem. Before I can know for certain what I’ve experienced, I need to understand what the Bible says (cf. Heb. 11:3). How ironic. In a dispute about the sufficiency of Scripture, some are hastily retreating to their experiences to defend their counseling methods. But the doctrines of Scripture’s sufficiency and authority prohibit this kind of pragmatism. Far be it from us to find what “works” and in the process lose our grip on sufficiency.
_________________________________
[1] Jared Poulton, X post on May 22, 2026 (https://x.com/jared_poulton/status/2057796810035351603).
[2] See Truth in Love episodes 566 “The History of Therapeutic Grounding” and 567 “Is Grounding Biblical?”.