Our misunderstood Bible; common errors about Bible texts and truths

Preface

No book is, in its more important truths, easier to understand than the Bible. Yet, at the same time, no book has suffered more than the Bible from being misunderstood at important points, as well as in other particulars. Some of these misunderstandings are easily accounted for, and might be easily removed; others are not easily accounted for, yet have prevailed, without being accounted for, from generation to generation.

There are many difficulties growing out of the radical differences between Oriental and Occidental methods of thought and speech, and customs and practises. Even such terms as " love M and " hate " can hardly be comprehended by a Westerner, as an Easterner would employ them, and on such a difference as this two schools of theology might array themselves in determined and persistent opposition. Again, the Oriental method of poetic imagery in ordinary speech is well nigh incomprehensible to the Occidental, accustomed as he is to cling to the letter of the text that killeth, as over again the spirit of a figure or an illustration that would give life.

There are many ideas about the Bible that generally prevail, without their having any basis ii Preface

in the Bible itself. These erroneous ideas have even a stronger hold on Bible readers generally than the Bible text; and in pulpit and in pew they are taken for granted as if they had some truth in them. Thus it is often said, without any sufficient thought on the subject, that " Law prevails in the Old Testament," and that " Love prevails in the New Testament;" and again that " the Holy Spirit strives directly with the sinner to bring him to repentance." Again, there have been wrong uses of a word, through mistranslation, or through a misunderstanding of the technical or the popular meaning of that word in former times, which tend to mislead the reader. Such is the term " be converted," instead of the simple term " turn." The Revisers have not been able to change all the ideas that had grown out of the error of their predecessors, by showing as they have that " be converted " is not a Bible term in the sense that it was long supposed to be. Again the term " cross-bearing " or " bearing the cross " cannot be made to conform to the truth without considering the meaning it had in New Testament times. What it is now generally supposed to mean is very far from its Bible meaning.

" Perfection " and " sanctification " and " sacrifice," and other Bible words, have one meaning

Preface iii

as they appear in the Bible, and a very different meaning as they are commonly understood in religious conversation or controversy. They often have a very good meaning even as popularly understood — or misunderstood. But the Bible meaning is really the best one, even though another meaning may be commonly preferred.

Single Bible words, like " Mizpah," or " Angel," or " Cherubim,*-' or " Amen," are by many readers so misunderstood that they are a means of misleading than of rightly guiding those who would know and be helped by the truth.

Having found the gain to himself, and to some others, in the added light on Bible terms and truths by these explanations and corrections, the writer presents the statements and suggestions herewith, hoping that they may help still others. Yet none of the views here expressed are to be accepted by a Bible reader unless he find them to be conformable to Bible teachings on his more careful study. But in any event good can hardly fail to come of readers being stimulated to a closer examination of the grounds for believing or of questioning as to the ideas they have been accustomed to connect with certain Bible words and terms and truths.

Certain preliminary statements as to Bible teachings in general are given as precedent to a iv , Preface

treatment of specific texts and truths. The value of these also will be found in their possible suggestiveness rather than in any dogmatic value.

Philadelphia.

Contents

I

II Harming Souls by Quoting Scripture . . 17

III Understandest Thou What Thou Readest . . 23

II Harming 50uls By Quoting Scripture

Not only Bible words, but many other good things in use in daily life are liable to be misused, and so to harm instead of help. That which has power for good, if well used, is likely to have a corresponding power for evil if used unwisely. Its value depends on the skill and care displayed in its handling. A sharp carving knife, which in the hand of the head of the household may be a means of providing food for those who sit around the family table, may, in the hand of a little child or of a careless user, be a means of harm or of death to the one who has it in hand, or to those who are near him. As with material instruments, so with spiritual — their helpfulness or harm pivots on their right using as surely as on their intrinsic worth.

Thus, "the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." Yet the very writer who assures us of this great truth, speaking for those who indite inspired Scripture, and of those who receive the message, says, as to the truth concerning Jesus Christ: "We have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food." Hearers who are of an age or who are in a position where they "ought to be teachers'' often fail to perceive the difference between truths which are as milk for babes and those which are as solid food for full-grown men, and in consequence harm others by not "handling aright the word of truth" and giving proper portions for their nourishment and upbuilding.

Even the wisest religious teachers may be a means of harming souls who are not sufficiently considered in the manner and matter of the truth presented to them. Peter and Paul were certainly above the average as religious teachers, specially inspired for their exalted mission; but Peter says as to the epistles of Paul concerning Christ and his salvation : "Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you ; as also in all his epistles,

Harming Souls by Quoting Scripture 19

speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.''

What we call "Holy Scripture" or "Holy Bible" contains, as covering the pages and contents of our English Bible, words of truth and words of falsehood. This is not a matter of outside opinion ; it is so declared in the Holy Bible itself, and it is to be recognized as the declaration of holy men who gave us this inestimable record. It is distinctly said in that record that certain words came from God, and that certain other words came from Satan, as illustrated in succeeding pages ; that certain words were spoken by men whom God approved and who spoke for God, and that certain other words were spoken by enemies of God, whose falsehoods and whose falsity God by his representatives pointed out. Who will dare to say, for one minute, that the words of God and the words of Satan are of equal worth, that there is to be no distinction between the declarations of evil men contrary to the principles of God's law, and the declarations of men who spoke for God on the basis of eternal principles disclosed by him?

Paul, writing to Timothy as to the Old Testament Scriptures, which he had learned from his childhood, says, "Every scripture inspired of God/' or, as many read it, "is inspired of God, is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." That declaration of Paul's is true, as he meant it, and as he meant it to be understood ; but as it is often understood, or misunderstood, and is quoted, or misquoted, it is not true. If it be understood and quoted, as it often is, as meaning that every written word, including all the words of a certain version of the Sacred Scriptures, are equally true, even those words that God shows to be false, then that utterance of Paul is misunderstood, misquoted and misapplied, and souls are harmed or imperiled by the act. And so of many another portion of Scripture.

This is not merely a possible danger as to the use of Scripture, it is a very common and a very practical matter. The error of using Scripture words to the injury of precious souls by misunderstanding and therefore by misusing them, is widespread among teachers of well-nigh every grade. It is to be noted in the Sunday-school teacher's chair, in the superintendent's desk, at the editor's table, in the clergyman's pulpit, in the evangelist's tent, in the place of the theological professor or the ecclesiastical delegate. It does not even seem to be generally guarded against by

Harming 5ouIs by Quoting Scripture 21

those who value most highly Bible words as their weapon of attack and defense.

Many a man quotes from the book of Job as if its words were all true, because it is part of the Bible, without considering whether it is Job, or Eliphaz, or Bildad, or Zophar, or Elihu, or Satan, or God himself, who is the speaker. Similarly as to the book of Ecclesiastes ; often no difference seems to be noted between its passages of truth and those of avowed error. Words of the idolatrous Philistines are quoted as if they were the words of a prophet of Israel. So as to such texts as "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ;" "Jehovah watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another ;" "We all do fade as a leaf;" "Handle not, nor taste, nor touch (all which things are to perish with the using). " "If meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble." Such texts and others have been so often misused that many now do not have any idea of what is their true meaning. Every week, sermons are preached from texts misunderstood or misused by the preacher; and similarly in other spheres. Can Scripture be thus perverted without harm to hearers?

In quoting a Bible text, the first thing to be considered is whether it is declared in the Bible as true or as false ; and the next thing is to learn — not what it says, but — what it means. This often requires close study. When these two points are clear to the user's mind, it is time to consider, as then of chief importance, whether it is intended and fitted of God for application to those to whom the user has a message at this particular time. How seldom all this is duly considered in advance ! And how much harm is done, or risked, in consequence !

Ill

"UNDLRSTANDL5T THOU WHAT THOU RLADLST?"

It is one thing to read the Bible ; it is another thing to understand the Bible. Even though one has a reverent spirit, and a sincere desire to know the truth, as he reads in the Book of books, it does not follow that he will have an understanding of that which he reads. Knowledge is necessary in order to the gaining of knowledge. Study is essential to the acquirement of the results of study. Guidance from others is important, if we would be gainers from our own efforts in research. It is not enough to go to the Bible for instruction in that of which it treats. We must have knowledge outside of that which the Bible supplies, and help from outside of ourselves as earnest seekers after truth, if we would understand what we read and profit by our reading.

A man high in authority in the court of Ethiopia, and presumably of more than ordinary intelligence, had journeyed from his country to Jerusalem in order to worship Jehovah, the God of gods and the Lord of lords, at the one proper house of worship. He was a student of the Old Testament Scriptures. He had some knowledge of the truth, and he wanted to have more. After enjoying the advantages of a visit to the Holy City, he was returning homeward. As he journeyed he read in the book of Isaiah. Philip the evangelist, a special messenger of God, guided by the Holy Spirit; joined the Ethiopian as he rode in his chariot, and his first question to him was:

" Understandest thou what thou readest ? " (Acts 8: 30.)

The intelligent and modest response of the Ethiopian courtier was :

" How can I, except some one shall guide me?"

And he there sought and received the help of Philip in his Bible reading.

When two of the disciples of Jesus, better trained than the Ethiopian chamberlain, were wondering that their Master had submitted himself to death, that Master joined them, as they walked in anxious thought, and, after reproaching them for their dulness in the comprehension of Bible truth, he became anew their teacher, " and beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scrip-

" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 25

tures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24: 27.) Then for the first time they understood what they had often read in the Bible without understanding.

In the days of Jesus it was, as it is now, important, not merely to know the words of the Bible, but to Understand what was meant by those words as used by Bible writers, and as intended to be understood by Bible readers. Such understanding calls for knowledge and study, as well as spiritual guidance.

Bible words do not always mean just what they say, although Bible words always mean just what they mean. In reading Bible words it is, therefore, important for us to know just what those words mean, as well as just what those words say. When Jesus says, " The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life," (John 6: 63) we know that he means just what he means, while he does not mean just what he says. His " words " are not themselves " spirit " or " life," although they be made the means of both spirit and life. So, again, when Jesus says concerning his betrayer, " Good were it for that man if he had not been born" (Mark 14: 21), we have no doubt as to what he means, but we do not claim that the utterance as it stands is literally true. Of course it could not really be good for a man, unless there was a man for it to be good for.

Not all that is in the Bible is written because it is the truth. There are lies recorded there as lies, intended to be understood as lies ; yet many a time one of these lies is quoted as if it were the truth. A gentleman once said to the writer, in support of the idea that nothing is so precious to a man as his life :'

"All that a man hath will he give for his life." (Job 2: 4.)

" Where did you get that idea ? " said the writer.

" From the Bible," was the answer.

"Who said it?"

" Really I don't remember."

" Well, it was Satan who said it. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. The Lord proved it was a lie ; and here you are quoting that old lie of Satan as if it were the truth, just because the words as you quote them are in the Bible."

Yet that gentleman was not an ignoramus. He was one of the original International Lesson Committee, an exceptionally intelligent and careful Bible student. He simply illustrated in his course the liability there is of being deceived, or of being a means of deceiving others, by taking it for granted that all the words of the Bible are

" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 27

in themselves true, or are to be taken as meaning just what they say, or seem to say.

While the Bible is from God, it was written by men in human language ; and men are dependent on their knowledge of human language for their knowledge of the truths which God would teach them through the Bible. Originally written in Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Greek, the Bible had to be translated into the vernacular of modern men in order to be understood by modern men. Every man needs help in the simplest reading of the Bible in his own language. As a child he has to be taught the meaning of Bible words in his vernacular; and in his maturity he needs fresh light on the significance and force of Bible terms that he has but partially apprehended hitherto. A man who called on Mr. Moody in his study was surprised to find some open volumes of commentaries on his table.

" What, Brother Moody, do you use commentaries ?" he asked.

" Of course I do, " said Moody.

" Well, I sha'n't enjoy your preaching so much, now. I thought you preached right from the Bible. "

" Did you ever like my sermons ? "

" Indeed I did. "

" Then you liked Moody's commentaries."

Mr. Moody was shrewd enough to point out in this way that that hearer was helped to an understanding of what he read in the Bible by Mr. Moody, as every one must be helped by somebody in order to get the most and the best from the Bible.

At the best, human language is imperfect and liable to various interpretations and consequent ambiguity and misunderstandings. Moreover, words are figurative rather than exact and definitive, and it is necessary to get at the truth by the living suggestions in language, instead of taking that language as finally conclusive in its dead literalness. This difficulty in the use of Bible language is increased, or intensified, by the fact that the Bible was primarily written by Easterns for Easterns; and that Easterns, by their very nature, are prone to speak in figures of speech as an appeal to the imagination. Yet all human language is, in a sense, figurative, and this fact must be borne in mind by one who would understand the meaning of words as he reads them.

A scoffer was finding fault with Bible language because of its ambiguity, and claiming that religious truth, like scientific truth, should be stated in exact terms that could never be misunderstood. Terms for color and shape, he said, could not

" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 29

have two or more meanings, and would be the same in the same language in all the passing centuries. His Christian opponent responded:

" How would that be in a case like this : ' A blackberry is red when it is green/ Is there no ambiguity in the use of the terms for color there ? "

Wherever human language is employed for the expression of truth, scientific, poetic, or religious, there are possibilities of misunderstanding by intelligent hearers or readers, and these must be recognized and guarded against.

" Understandest thou what thou readest ? " is a question that comes home with force to every one who looks to the Bible for instruction and guidance ; and the more intelligent the student of the Bible is, the more inclined he is to say, " How can I, except some one shall guide me ? "

IV

A chief value of the Bible as a guide of human conduct is found in the fact that it is a book of vital principles, instead of being a book of rigid rules; that it indicates in its precepts the spirit that should influence us in all our actions, instead of declaring to us in specific injunctions the application of those principles in every imaginable case. Yet it is just at this point that the Bible is misunderstood by many, and that many are perplexed by what seems to them a lack of explicitness in the divinely inspired teachings of the Bible.

Men go to the Bible for rules of conduct, when they ought to go there for principles to guide them in framing rules. They find there a statement which is in the form of a rule, and they accept it as unqualifiedly binding on themselves and others for all time, when a closer study of its meanings would show that it was intended not as an invariable rule, but as an incidental illustration of a principle that is of unvarying application to all persons and all times. In this way men are often misled by the letter of the Bible text, and fail to perceive the life-giving spirit of that text.

In the Old Testament it is written : " Thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might ; " and again : " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. " In the New Testament these commandments are repeated in the same form ; and Jesus says of them : " On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." Yet these commandments are of small account as mere rules of conduct, while they are "exceeding broad " as principles to guide all conduct. They do not tell us what to do to show that we love God, or that we love our neighbor. They do give us a principle by which we can shape our actions towards God and towards man. We must, however, first know what love is, and then we must learn by study and thought what is required as an exhibit of love.

He who really wants to know and to do just what is right in any given case, has the responsibility laid upon him of finding out for himself how the principle of these commandments bears upon that case, and then of acting accordingly. But if a man is puzzled to know whether love requires him to take the right hand or the left when he meets a fellow-man on a narrow crossing in a muddy street, he will find no specific declaration on the subject in the pages of the entire Bible. The principles enunciated in the Bible ought to enable a man to see that it is his duty to conform to the well-defined current practise in such -a matter and to concede to his fellow-man that portion of the pathway which custom or law declares to be his fellow-man's. But unless a man is willing to study out from Bible principles a rule that should guide him in the case, he must be so far without a rule that has the Bible sanction. And thus it is in all the range of human duty; the Bible enunciates the principle that ought in every case to be a man's standard of action, while it does not purpose to supply a man with a specific rule for every particular case before him for decision.

Although this is unmistakably the truth concerning the Bible, it is by no means generally recognized as the truth ; and because of the misconceptions of the purpose and methods of the Bible so far, men are constantly misleading themselves in courses of conduct through their conviction that the Bible does or does not specifically pass upon those courses of conduct for all time and for every person. They perceive, for example, that a certain course of conduct seems, at the present time, to tend to the injury of the one who pursues it, and of others who are affected by its influence. This causes them to ask whether or not the course be a sinful one. Going to the Bible with an idea that that is a book of specific rules of conduct, instead of a book of principles from which rules of conduct are to be deduced, they look for some explicit forbidding of the course in question, and, not finding that there, they decide that the conduct itself cannot properly be counted sinful. Their mistake is not as to what is in the Bible, but as to what the' Bible is. They suppose the Bible to be a book of rules, when it really is a book of principles illustrated by historic applications of principles to particular cases.

A gentleman once challenged the writer to point to a single Bible text that forbade human slavery, or if he could not do so to admit that human slavery was in conformity with Bible teachings. Thus challenged, the writer replied:

" I frankly confess that I cannot point to any Bible text which, taken as it stands in the obvious meaning attached to it by its writer, specifically forbids slavery, polygamy, or wine drinking. At the same time, I cannot point to any single Bible text which specifically commands any one of these practises. Therefore, as at present advised, and in the light of gospel principles as I understand them, and in the exercise of a sound Christian discretion, I shall have but one wife, no negro, and drink cold water. "

There was the argument in a nutshell as to the view of Bible texts as expressive of principles, or of rules. One man looked to the Bible as a mere book of rules ; the other looked to it as a thesaurus of principles, from which rules were to be deduced for the guidance of conduct from time to time.

It is true that the New Testament (Col. 3: 22) says explicitly: "Servants [the Greek is bond-servant or slave] obey in all things them that are your masters, according to the flesh/' and that slaves were exhorted to be in subjection to their own masters. But that was simply the enunciation of a principle which is to guide all Christians in their relations to those having authority over them. It is not a rule which enjoins the practise of human slavery at all times. It is true that a proverb in use in Solomon's day says : " Look not thou upon the wine when it is red," but that is no more binding as an invariable rule for all men everywhere, than the other proverb : " Go to the ant, thou sluggard." It does not mean it is safe to drink wine with your eyes shut. It does mean that if you want to be clear of danger from wine, you will do well to let it alone, without even looking towards it in its attractiveness. It is true that office bearers in the church were required to have only one wife ; but that does not mean that laymen holding no official position were to have more than one wife. The principle enunciated in that command was that in a polygamous community no man who indulged in polgyamy was to be chosen for an office in the Christian church.

An eminent and highly honored bishop of the Church of England said, in an address on the subject of betting and gambling, in the presence of the clergy of his diocese : " There is no sin in racing or betting, any more than there is sin in drinking; excessive betting is sin, just as excessive drinking is sin." Then, as showing how he arrived at this conclusion, he added : u If a man says, ' I will bet you £5 that it will not rain to-morrow, ' I think it would take a long time to prove from the Bible that that man was guilty of a sin. " The trouble with the learned bishop in this case was not so much in his view of betting as in his view of the Bible. He seemed to suppose that unless a perilous practise is specifically condemned in the Bible, it cannot be reckoned a sinful practise ; whereas the principles enunciated in the Bible are sufficiently comprehensive and clear to prove that it may be sinful for us to indulge in a perilous practise which is not in itself a sin.

The Bible does not declare cabbage-eating to be a sin ; but if, during a season of cholera, or at any other time, a man's physician should tell him that for him to eat cabbage would be sheer suicide, does it need any proof-text from the Bible to show that cabbage-eating by that man would be sinful ? The Bible would exhibit to that man the principle by which his conduct should be guided, but it would give him no explicit rule as to cabbage-eating. Even if he were to find in the Bible narrative that patriarchs, prophets, and apostles had eaten cabbage freely, that fact would not make it any the less sinful for him to eat cabbage in the face of its probable consequences to him and to his. And it matters not whether the illustration be taken from the cabbagegarden, the orchard, or the vineyard.