Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Don’t Misinterpret the Bereans: Berean Principle Reexamined

Don’t Misinterpret the Bereans: Berean Principle Reexamined

Last updated on: June 30, 2026 at 8:31 am by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

Don’t Misinterpret the Bereans: Berean Principle Reexamined 2026-06-30T08:31:45-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

AI image by author.

Recently, I engaged in a lively but civil debate about Christian authority with my Presbyterian pastor friend, Nate Taylor, who pastors Corner Canyon Church in Draper, Utah. This was not our first discussion on the subject. We also debated it extensively online in 2022 (linked here).

During both debates, Nate repeatedly appealed to what I call the Berean Principle. This principle holds that the Bereans (Acts 17:11) represent the Christian ideal. St. Luke commends them for examining the Scriptures daily to determine the authenticity of St. Paul’s proclamation that Jesus is the Christ. According to Nate, that commendation demonstrates that “Scripture remains the final court of appeal over every human teacher.”

But does Nate correctly understand the Bereans he—and many other Protestants—so greatly admire? Does Acts 17 establish a lasting principle requiring every Christian to adjudicate doctrinal disputes independently by searching the Scriptures? Or does St. Luke describe a unique historical moment in the Church’s life rather than a perpetual method for resolving doctrinal controversy?

That distinction matters.

What the Bereans Were Actually Doing

Before examining the Bereans themselves, we need to establish a few important facts.

First, at this point in the Church’s history, no New Testament books yet existed for anyone to examine. The Bereans therefore had only the Old Testament—most likely in the form of the Septuagint—against which to compare St. Paul’s preaching.

Second, the issue before them was a single, straightforward question: Was St. Paul’s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah true?

With that context in mind, St. Luke’s praise becomes much clearer. He commends the Bereans because they received St. Paul’s proclamation after examining the Old Testament Scriptures. Notice what the passage does not depict. The Bereans did not use Scripture to correct the apostle, nor did they appeal to Scripture alone to adjudicate a doctrinal dispute within the Church.

In short, Acts 17 describes the reception of apostolic preaching, not a perpetual model for resolving doctrinal controversies.

Reception, not correction.

Act 15: Circumcision, St. Paul, and the Council of Jerusalem

Now let’s apply the Berean Principle to the first major doctrinal controversy in the early Church: Must Gentile converts undergo the Jewish rite of circumcision?

Some believers, commonly called the Judaizers, answered yes. They insisted, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). St. Paul, however, taught that circumcision belonged to the Old Covenant and was no longer binding upon Gentile converts.

If we apply the Berean Principle as it is often understood today, we must ask what the Old Testament alone would have told a sincere Jewish believer. The biblical case for circumcision was remarkably strong. In Genesis 17:9–14, God reveals three important truths:

Fact 1

God Himself instituted circumcision.

Fact 2

God calls circumcision “an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:13).

Fact 3

The Old Testament never explicitly revokes, or even hints at revoking, circumcision.

Based on the Old Testament alone, the Judaizers appeared to have the stronger biblical case.

If the Berean Principle were the Church’s permanent method for resolving doctrinal disputes, the apostles could simply have instructed believers to continue practicing circumcision in accordance with the Scriptures. Instead, the apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem, deliberated, and rendered a binding judgment that Gentile converts were not required to be circumcised.

They explained their decision with these remarkable words:

“It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28)

Acts 15 therefore records more than an appeal to Scripture alone. It records the Church authoritatively adjudicating the meaning and application of God’s revelation.

St. Paul and the Judaizers

St. Paul also confronted the Judaizers in his Letter to the Galatians. He did not treat their appeal to the Old Testament as merely another plausible interpretation of Scripture. Instead, he warned that those who preached circumcision as necessary for salvation proclaimed “another gospel” and pronounced an anathema upon their teaching (Galatians 1:8–9).

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul’s language leaves little room for the idea that the circumcision controversy remained an open question for individual believers to resolve by further study of the Old Testament. He treated the matter as settled. Those who continued to preach circumcision as necessary for salvation stood outside the apostolic faith. The Church had rendered its judgment, and Paul expected the faithful to assent to it.

Nicaea Followed the Same Apostolic Pattern

Three centuries later, another theological controversy threatened the unity of the Church: Arianism. Arius, a priest in Alexandria, taught that the Son came into existence and therefore did not share the same divine nature as the Father. Arius and his followers rallied around the phrase, “There was a time when He was not.”

The bishops at Nicaea rejected Arius’ teaching and confessed that the Son is homoousios (“of the same substance”) with the Father. To express that truth, they deliberately adopted an extra-biblical term.

Had the bishops applied the Berean Principle as many understand it today, I do not see how they could have reached that conclusion, much less adopted a term that Scripture itself never uses. Arius and his followers seized on that very point. They argued that the Nicene bishops had abandoned Scripture by introducing language the Bible never employed.

The Third Council of Sirmium expressed the Arian position plainly:

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to ‘coessential,’ or what is called ‘like-in-essence,’ there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them…

Notice the argument. The Arians did not reject Scripture’s authority. They rejected the Church’s authority to express Scripture’s meaning with language that Scripture itself did not use.

Like the apostles at Jerusalem and St. Paul in his Letter to the Galatians, the Nicene bishops did more than offer one interpretation among many. They rendered a judgment, condemned Arianism, and attached anathemas to those who rejected their decision. Once again, the Church adjudicated a doctrinal controversy and called the faithful to assent to its judgment.

Agreement Is Not the Same as Assent

A brief word about the difference between agreement and assent.

Some may argue that all seriously minded Christians ultimately operates under the Berean Principle, Catholics included. After all, didn’t I make historical, theological, and rational judgments before entering the Catholic Church?

Yes—but not in the way many imagine.

When I entered the Catholic Church, I did not fully agree with every Catholic doctrine. I especially struggled with some Marian dogmas.

Had I operated under the Berean Principle, I would have delayed entering the Church until I independently resolved every objection. Instead, I became convinced that Christ had established a Church with authority to teach in His name. Because I recognized that authority, I assented to the Church’s teaching even while my own understanding continued to mature.

This brings us back to Acts 15 and the Judaizers.

Imagine a sincere Jewish Christian who still struggled to reconcile Genesis 17 with the Jerusalem decree. Was he expected to withhold assent until he personally reached agreement? Or was he expected to trust the apostolic judgment while his understanding matured?

Agreement and assent are not the same thing.

Final Thoughts… The Real Danger of the Berean Principle

The real danger of the Berean Principle is not the study of Scripture. Catholics should imitate the Bereans in their love for God’s Word and their eagerness to search the Scriptures.

The danger arises when we transform Acts 17 into a perpetual principle that quietly relocates the Church’s teaching authority to the judgment of each individual interpreter.

Acts 15 presents a different pattern. When a doctrinal controversy threatened the unity of the Church, the apostles and elders gathered, deliberated, and rendered a judgment:

“It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28)

The Church did not merely offer another interpretation of Scripture. It exercised the authority Christ had entrusted to it. Later, both St. Paul and the bishops at Nicaea reinforced that pattern by attaching anathemas to those who rejected the Church’s judgment. They expected assent, not necessarily immediate agreement. Otherwise, why pronounce an anathema at all?

By all means, emulate the Bereans. Search the Scriptures with diligence and humility.

But don’t misinterpret the Bereans. If you turn Acts 17 into a replacement for Acts 15, you may find yourself standing with the Judaizers in Jerusalem or the Arians at Nicaea—both convinced they had Scripture on their side, yet both rejecting the Church’s judgment.