CHAPLAIN’S PAGE – MISCONCEPTIONS OF SCRIPTURES
Many misconceptions have come about through careless and thoughtless reading, or by swallowing all that is said from the pulpit. Some may only turn to its pages in times of trouble. Certainly they will find the solace they so badly need. However, there are those who have an insatiable appetite for knowledge. For them it is necessary to look deeply into its pages, and compare text with text. A proper understanding of what certain keywords mean which crop up regularly is essential. Only in this way can their quest for knowledge be correctly assuaged.
To a certain degree we are all products of our environment. We were brought up to imbibe whatever was taught by parents and school. Being young and inexperienced, we accepted what was offered without question. Today there is an alarming trend inasmuch as our history is taught with a marked bias against much of our history. Social engineering has become a highly developed art by those who shape this generations thinking. Even many of those older ones who wish to increase their knowledge of the Scriptures, have preconceived ideas before they even begin. This is often the result of bad or careless teaching by those in the churches who should know better.
It is the purpose of this article to briefly examine six examples where genuine seekers after truth have been given misleading teaching. Learning about Scripture and God’s Great Plan is a process. This takes time and application. Isaiah gives us a helpful clue in chapter 28 verses 9 and 10.
Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little.
Paul confirmed Isaiah’s teaching instructions, and at the same time had a dig at the pastors who have no knowledge and consider themselves teachers. His condemnation is aimed directly at those who mislead their congregations,
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful (margin, ‘hath no experience’) in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age (margin, ‘perfect’) even those who by reason of use (margin, ‘or of a habit) have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.’ (Hebrew C5:12-14)
The first example of misleading teaching concerns salvation and redemption. Do they mean the same? The majority of Christians believe that they do. A few minutes with a concordance will reveal that there is a difference. There are some instances where they do have a similar meaning, but the word salvation is used principally to denote deliverance, rescue, or liberty for the individual. On the other hand, redemption is used mostly for Israel. The root meaning is to buy back something which was yours initially. This is clearly demonstrated in II Samuel C7:23-24.
And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?
For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, Lord, art become their God.
A similar truth is expressed in I Chronicles C17:21,
And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
How can we ignore those wonderful words of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, when he was filled with the Holy Ghost?
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people. (Luke C1:68)
A man filled with the Holy Ghost cannot err in matters of doctrine! These texts confirm that Christ’s supreme sacrifice was to redeem His nation Israel. A special people by covenant relationship to Him forever.
On the other hand, salvation is open to individuals of every nation under the sun. This is made clear in Peter’s second epistle, chapter 3 verse 9.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Thus, salvation for the individual is open to those of every nation.
The next example of misleading teaching concerns Abraham’s nationality. It is stated from the pulpit that he was a Jew and who would say otherwise? Even when it is pointed out, both from Scripture and history that he couldn’t possibly have been, some have replied ‘well, it doesn’t matter anyway.’ Those who approach Scripture with that attitude will never learn, or begin to understand God’s Great Plan.
When Scripture informs us of events and facts, they are not there merely to fill the pages. Every word is written for a purpose, and that is to inform us of what the Holy Spirit requires us to know. It is clear from Deuteronomy C29:29 that all that has been revealed is there for our learning and instruction,
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
What a privilege! That Almighty God through the Holy Spirit has allowed us to share with Him so much knowledge. All that has been revealed is ours by Divine right. What an insult to say that it doesn’t matter. Our approach to the Word must always be with due reverence.
So was Abraham a Jew? The first mention of the name is found in II Kings C16 and verse 6. The significance is obvious when we realise that the events of that chapter were taking place in approximately 742 BC, some twelve hundred years after Abraham. Why was the name Jew not mentioned before that time? What is the origin of the name Jew? It is a derivation of the name Judah. Abraham’s grandson was Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel. He had twelve sons, one of whom was Judah. Each son’s name became a tribal name. In 975 BC there came about a split in the nation, and ten tribes moved north into Samaria. However, the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (with a few Levites) remained in Jerusalem. They became
known as the Southern Kingdom of Judah. About 721 BC, they were taken captive to Babylon. It was whilst they were there that their captors referred to those of the tribe of Judah, as Jews, (merely a corruption of the name Judah.)
This is basic Biblical history which most Bible historians do not dispute. How then could Abraham, who lived over a thousand years before Judah, have been a Jew? By race, Abraham was a Hebrew. Until this is understood, it is not possible to see the significance of Israel’s subsequent history.
A further misconception concerns the Abrahamic Covenant. Christians have been taught that it was given to the Jews. It has been demonstrated above that Abraham was not a Jew, therefore the Covenant which God made to him and his seed, was to the whole house of Israel.
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (Genesis C17:7)
Nothing could be clearer; the covenant was established with Isaac, and to all the tribes, forever. To believe that Judah is the only possessor of the Covenant is not in accordance with what the Scriptures teach.
Yet another misconception is that the names Israel and Judah mean the same. The Scriptures clearly show that after the split of the nation in 975 BC mentioned above, the history of both houses has been quite different. To demonstrate this fact in one article is clearly not possible. Other articles in The Ensign Message from time to time by other authors have traced their separate histories. To the serious seeker after truth it is vital that their separate roles in history are clearly understood. Without this key it is not possible to understand the current Middle East situation.
We now consider a further serious misconception which almost all Christians have accepted without question. It is taught that the church is the bride of Christ. Biblical symbolism remains constant throughout the Scriptures. If we lose sight of this as a working principle, we will surely go sadly astray. The church is not the bride of Christ; He is the head of the Church, (Ephesians C1:22, C4:15, C5:23, Colossians C1:18.) The church is symbolised by being Christ’s body, (Romans C12:5, I Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians C1:23, C4:12, Colossians C1:24 and C2:19.) Christ is the head of the church, not its husband. Can a man marry his own body? Obviously not, but this is not all, because those who believe that the church is Christ’s bride have ignored yet another basic fact. The church is not female, it is male, for it is Christ’s body. One cannot have a male head and female body! If the church is not the bride, then who is?
Isaiah couldn’t have made it plainer than in chapter 54:5 and 6,
For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
The time came because of idolatry, especially of the Northern House of Israel, that God divorced her. Hosea shows us this terrible event in chapter 2:2,
for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;
Jeremiah confirms the divorce in Chapter 3:6-8,
The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
The time is shortly coming when the Lord will remarry Israel at His return. However, at first sight there appears to be a difficulty, as under the law a man may not remarry his divorced wife. This is made clear in Deuteronomy C24:4,
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
It appears therefore that a remarriage of Israel to her God cannot take place. However, the prophecy of Caiaphas recorded in John C11:51 informs us, that Jesus should die for that nation (Israel.) So Jesus, the original husband died in order to redeem his divorced wife. In His resurrection body He will be legally able to re-marry her. The new marriage will be of a different order from the old. In Hosea chapter two, we see that in the first marriage the bride referred to her husband as Baali that is ‘my Lord.’ However, in the new marriage contract she will call her husband ‘Ishi’ that is ‘my husband.’
A new marriage contract, thus will Israel be the wife of the Ever living forever! One further point needs clarification. There are some who believe that New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ. Revelation C21 verse 2,
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
This is a classic red herring! The text is merely stating that the descending new city will be decked out and made beautiful as any bride would do. Christ cannot marry an inanimate object. As wonderful as the new city will be, it is still only a creation devoid of life. If it is Christ’s bride, then all of God’s promises and covenants to the nation would be nil and void. As stated above, symbolism in the Scriptures remains constant.
The final misconception concerns baptism. A number of churches describe it as an ordinance. If this is so, then Paul’s teaching in Ephesians C2:15 must be incorrect,
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(See also Colossians C2:14.) It is quite clear from Article 25 of the Church of England that baptism is a sacrament and not an ordinance.
The reader may consider that the above examples of misconceptions are no more than splitting hairs, but not so. God’s precious living Word has been given to us and is the most precious thing that this world affords, (as the Coronation Service describes it.) We cannot treat it as a book at bedtime, or something to fill our bookshelf. It is meant to be used. It is our heritage, our life, and our future.
