Our Misunderstood Bible

Our Misunderstood Bible OUR MISUNDERSTOOD BIBLE
By James H. Childress When a presumptuous stranger on an ancient high-way asked the Ethiopian eunuch, “Understandest thou thou what thou readest'?” (Acts 8:30), he received an honest answer: “How can I except some man should guide me?” Most of us need a host of Philips to aid us in our study today. Not only is the Bible the most widely circulated book in the world: it also has the rare distinction of being the least understood book in all the universe.

1. The Bible is to some extent misunderstood be-cause of inaccurate or faulty translations. Of course you and I know enough to realize that the Bible is a translated library. To that extent we have the advantage over the sister who went to her grave insisting that the Apostle James wrote the Bible in the English tongue.
The expression, “be converted,” as found in such passages as Matthew 13:15; Matthew 18:3; Acts 3:18 and so on, has been responsible for much religious delusion. De-nominational preachers have argued at great length that “be converted” is passive—as it is in this faulty translation—and it follows that the alien sinner is acted upon by an outside influence in a mysterious way in order to bring about a “conversion.” As a matter of truth the sinner is active in obeying the gospel. “Be converted” is correctly translated '‘turn” or “turn again” in the Revised Version. The King James translators for obvious reasons merely anglicized the Greek word baptizo and its various forms. The popular practices of substituting sprinkling and pouring for immersion have hidden under this cloak for generations, and creed-bound preachers have rejoiced to have it so. In the second chapter and fourth verse of 2 Peter we learn that God “spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell.” In this citaiion “hell” is tartarus, a word that' occurs nowhere else in the sacred writings. Perhaps one of tne most inexcusable errors in translation is the unhappy use of one English word to express three entirely different Greek words: “hell” has been used as the equivalent of Gehenna, hades, and tartarus. Such inaccuracy more than doubles the trials of anyone sincerely endeavoring to teach the word of truth. The King James wording of 2 Peter 2:9 follows: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve, the unjust unto the, day of judgment to be. punished.” But' a later and better rendering gives the passage thus: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment.” According to t'he former, the punishment is entirely future. And while we are discussing inaccurate translations, we might as well tell our friends that their humorous references to Jonah’s “whale” are groundless. The rendering in Matthew 12:40 is wrong. The Greek word is properly translated “sea monster.” Our common version states that John baptized “with water.” (See Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16.) A proper translation would have stopped the puerile arguments of the old-time Methodist debaters, who contended that this phrase proved that the water, and not the subject, was handied by the administrator in the act of baptism. John baptized “in water”—not “with water.” In Galatians 3:24 we read that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” The Greek word here translated “schoolmaster” is “paidagogos”—meaning a “child-conductor,” usually a slave who had charge of boys until they became of age. The Greek “paida- gogos” differed so widely in character and function from, our “schoolmaster” that we may conclude the current translation to be extremely inaccurate. Indeed, the beauty of God’s striking figure is obscured until we learn something about the nature of the work of the ancient pedagogue. When we in studying the Authorized Version read that “once in the end of the world hath he (Christ) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26), we are very likely to be confused, because in our current speech the “end of the world” is yet future. If I understand the meaning of this language, Christ appeared at the end of the age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation—to put away sin by his atoning sacrifice. (Frequently, “world” ought to be rendered “age” or “ages.”)

2. The Bible is frequently misunderstood by modern readers because of antiquated translations.
Even a pious reader might be inclined to grow skep-tical upon seeing these words of the Psalmist: “I prevented the dawning of the morning” (Psalms 119:147). Such passages become clear when we are told that the word “prevent” here means to “come before” or “pre-cede.” The word is also used in this sense in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 : “ ... we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent1 them which are asleep.” Our English language is undergoing a steady metamorphosis.

There is to our modern eyes and ears something ex-tremely awkward m this phrasing: “Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia” (2 Corinthians 8:1). It is clear enough when we modernize it to read as follows: “Moreover, brethren, we would have you understand I once read of a banquet' given by society leaders in a large city of the North. The profits were to be used to help the needy. Upon the wall these words appeared: “The greatest of these is charity.” “Charity” to those revelers meant what it means to most of us today: giving money to the poor. It is possible for one to bestow all his goods to feed the poor and still lack charity. “Love” is the better term; the popular conception of the meaning of “charity” has changed since 1611. Our favorite, 2 Timothy 2:15, does not mean what nine4enths of us make it mean. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that' needeth not to be asham,ed, righty dividing the word of truth.” Now, here is what we make it mean in our sermons: “Study and investigate the Bible for the purpose of making God approve you; the way to do this is by showing people the difference between the Old Testa ment and the New.” What’s wrong about that? Simply this: “study” as used by the translators here does not mean what “study” means in our every-day speech. It is here equivalent to t'he Latin studeo, “to be zealous,” “to strive,” etc. Let me try to give the meaning of 2 Timothy 2:15 in modern speech: “Make a strong effort to meet with God’s approval .... handling the truth accurately and correctly.” (Incidentally, it is well to note that there are several other of our favorites that need to be reinterpreted.)

3. The Bible is misunderstood by a number of readers because they do not understand plain English.
The most extreme case that comes to mind is the el-derly gentleman who reproved some boys for playing marbles. “It’s sinful to play marbles, boys,” said he, shaking his finger in a commanding manner. “How do you know it is?” asked one of the impudent lads. “Because the Bible very plainly says, ‘Marble not’.” In an Old issue of the Gospel Advocate I read a report from the pen of G. C. Brewer. Incidentally, Brother Brewer told of an old brother’s objections to his preaching. He accused Brother Brewer of wresting the Scriptures. Brother Brewer, of course, was puzzled. Upon investigation he found that the old man did not like the Revised rendering of Acts 2:38. His complaint went like this:“We’ve always told the Baptists that baptism is for the remission of sms and now you back down on what we have always taught. You preach that baptism is ‘unto the remission of sins’.” “What’s wrong with that?” asked the evangelist. “Well everybody knows that ‘un-’ means ‘not’; ‘unnecessary’ is ‘not necessary’; so, ‘unto the remission of sins’ means ‘not to the remission of sins’ and it’s sinful for you to preach that way.” Tne dear old brother’s learning was a dangerous thing because he had learned too little. To most Americans “meat” means flesh, and “corn” means maize. I remember a teacher who once told her class about Abraham’s making cornbread. In the Bible (as in England) “meat” means food, and “corn” means grain. The latter part of Revelation 2:10 is usually misinterpreted because we fail to give the word “unto” its right mean-ing. It reads as follows: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” Note that the word is “unto”—it doesn’t mean “until”! It does mean: “Be faithful even if it' costs your life.”

Ask the next ten persons you meet this question: “Does the Bible mention a ‘straight and narrow way’?” At least nine will say, “Yes, everybody knows that.” Turn with me to Matthew 7:14 : “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” The gate is “strait” and the way is “narrow” there is no such phrase as the “straight and narrow way” to be found between the lids of the Bible. It originated, of course, in the minds of people who confused “s-t-r-a-i-t” with the more familiar “s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t.”

4. The Bible is misunderstood because we have accepted at face value words or ideas which originated outside the Bible.
Bruce Barton in the opening chapter of his widely circulated production, The Book Nobody Knows, illus
trates the above principle by giving us the following incidents:

“An intelligent and talkative lady found herself at dinner seated beside a bishop. Having a social gift, she knew that most men are flattered to be met in conversation on their own grounds, and so she started to talk about the Bible.“ ‘I can’t pretend that I read it as much as I should,’ she confessed, ‘and really you know parts of it’ seem to me hopelessly out of date. ‘Yet,’ she added broad-mindedly, ‘I’ll admit that there are some very beautiful passages.’ “‘Yes?’ said the Bishop. ‘For instance?’ “ ‘Well, for example, that line about God tempering the wind to the shorn lamb.’ (On the chance that there may be one or possibly two readers whose knowledge is no more exact than that of this fair lady, let us hasten to remark that ‘God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb’ is in Sterne’s Sentimental Journey, a book wich resembles the Bible about as much as Robinson Crusoe resembles the Encyclopedia .Brittannica.)“ ‘And now you must tell me your favorite verse,’ the lady continued brightly.“ ‘It would be hard for me to pick a single verse,’ the Bishop answered. “But I can give you my favorite passage. It is the one that tells about Eliza crossing the ice.’ “Not long ago I met a man who wanted to know which of the Old Testament books contains the verse: ‘Thus saith the Lord, Every tub shall stand upon its own bottom.’ The answer is that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel give expression to bits of philosophy that resemble this, but not in words that bear any resemblance to it whatever.”

There is quite a good deal of this “chimney-corner Scripture” in circulation. Here is a question which you all have heard: “The time will come when man cannot distinguish between winter and summer except by the falling of the. leaves.” (Sometimes it is altered to read “by the budding of the trees.”) Not once, but many times, have friends warmly affirmed that the Bible so teaches, only to search for the passage in vain. I should really like to show the origin of this pseudo-Scriptural verse.

Just to show how easy it is for us absorb such false ideas, let us quiz ourselves:
(a) What kind of fruit did Eve eat ? Was it really an apple?
(b) How do you know that there were three wise men?
(c) Is it true that Absalom’s long hair was caught in the branches of a tree as he fled from battle?(2 Samuel 18:9).
(d) Who passed over the Israelites in mercy and smote the first born of the Egyptians—the “death an-gel” or the Lord Himself? (Exodus 12:12-13).

All to many of us believe that a “saint” is an es-pecially pious Christian or a dead and exalted one. We speak of the meeting house as the “church.” The word “ordain” to our misinformed minds has a ritualistic significance, and we falsely imagine that “minister” is a Bible synonym for “preacher.” Our mental pictures of hell, heaven, Satan, angels, cherubim, and seraphim are largely the impression made by literature, sculpture, and painting. For in-stance, Milton and Dante are responsible for many unreasonable and grotesque ideas which we fondly imag-ine are authorized by the Bible. Painters and sculptors have seemingly conspired to deceive us as to the appearance of angels: beings, often feminine, with beautiful wings, given to playing on golden harps, pure and sinless and lovable. In the Bible an angel is pri-marily a messenger (sometimes human beings serve as angels) or an agent of God. The Bible teaches that angels have sinned moreover, they are never therein described as( beautiful females. Our popular song writers have contributed their quota to our widespread misconception along this line; it is ridiculous for them to write about the dead becoming angels. The Holy Scriptures in no wise hint that a cherub is a dimpled little child; in Ezekiel 10:14 the Bible speaks of a cher-ub as being part ox, part' lion, part eagle, and part man (possibly a symbolic figure embodying service, strength, aspiration, and intelligence). I might well add that a seraph is not a dainty sprite. While I believe that pictures and illustrations may to some extent’ be legitimately employed in Bible teaching, it is only fair and truthful for the teacher to explain to his pupils that no artist knows or can know just what Jesus, Mary, Paul and others looked like.

Many of these ideas from extra-Biblical sources are comparatively harmless, but pictures and drawings, as well as words, can become positively dangerous when used as vehicles of sectarian propaganda. A woman, who lived in a north Texas county, had been almost persuaded to obey the gospel. Water had been sprinkled on her in lieu of baptism, and she was deeply troubled. A day or so before she was to be immersed, she attended a picture show purporting to portray the earth life of Jesus. Among other things, this woman saw “John the Baptist” dip water from the Jordan with a convenient shell, and then pour this water on the head of “Jesus.” When she was asked, “When are you going to be immersed?” she angrily responded: “Never. You had me deceived; but I went to the show and saw with my own eyes just how Jesus was baptized, and what was good enough for Him is good enough for me.” As long as we try to study the Bible by proxy, and allow others to do our thinking for us, we lay ourselves open to the grossest and most mischievous forms of error. I dare say that any preacher on Sunday morning can read some skillfully phrased production of uninspired composition and then announce to his audience that he has quoted from one of the seldom read books of the Old Testament, and thereby utterly deceive nine-ty per cent of his hearers. To test' this statement, I ask you to listen attentively to the following verses:

1. And it came to pass after these things, that Abraham sat in the door of his tent,
about the going down of the sun.
2. And behold a man, bowed with age, coming from the way of the wilderness,
leaning on a staff.
3. And Abraham arose, and met him, and said unto him, Turn in, I pray thee,
and wash thy feet, and tarry all night, and thou shalt arise early in the morning
and go on thy way.
4. But the man said, Nay, for I will abide under this tree.
5. And Abraham pressed him greatly; so he turned and they went into the tent:
and Abraham baked un-leavened bread, and they did eat.
6. And when Abraham saw that the man blessed not God, he said unto him,
wherefore dost' thou not worship the most high God, creator of heaven
and earth ?
7. And the man answered and said, I do not worship thy God, neither do I call
upon his name; for I have made to myself a god, which abideth alway in mine
house, and provideth me with all things.
8. And Abraham’s zeal was kindled against the man, and he arose, and fell
upon him, and drove him forth with blows into the wilderness.
9. And at midnight, God called unto Abraham, say-ing, Abraham, where is the stranger?
10. And Abraham answered and said, Lord, he would not worship thee, neither would he
call upon thy name, therefore have I driven him out from before my face, into the wilderness.
11. And God said, Have I not corne with him these hundred ninety and eight years,
and nourished him, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me: and
couldst not thou, that art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night?
12. And Abraham said, Let not the anger of my Lord wax hot against his servant; lo, I have
sinned; forgive me, I pray thee.
13. And he arose, and went forth into the wilderness, and sought diligently for the man,
and found him;
14. And returned with him to his tent: and when he had entreated him kindly, he sent him
away in the morning with gifts.
15. And God spake again unto Abraham, saying, For this thy sin shall thy seed be afflicted
four hundred years in a strange land.
16. But for thy repentance will I deliver them: and they shall come forth with power, and
with gladness of heart, and with much substance. The above is not' from the Bible, but from the fertile mind of the great Benjamin Franklin. In the summer of 1763, Dr. Franklin was the guest of honor at a party in England. In the course of the general conversation, a noted doctor of divinity affirmed it to be right to employ persecution to stamp out heresy.

Franklin crossed swords with him, arguing that the Bible itself taught otherwise. The clergyman admitted that there were some New Testament passages which might be interpreted to favor lenience rather than per-secution. Franklin then inquired, ‘‘But is not the Old Testament against you as well as the New: what think you of that remarkable chapter in the book of Genesis?” The clergyman knew of no chapter in Genesis bearing on this subject'. Franklin called for his host’s family Bible, and then proceeded to read what he styled “The twenty-seventh chapter of the first book of Moses, commony called the book of Genesis”—the sixteen verses of which are given above.) 5. The Bible is misunderstood because we fail to consider words and passages in the light of their contexts.

There are, of course, a number of passages, proverbial in character, which have a proper meaning apart from their setting. But even Acts 2:38 cannot be understood without studying the whole chapter, as well as the first chapter of Acts.

I have time for only a few interesting examples of popular mistakes under this heading.

“I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Cris- pus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14). This passage has been repeatedly employed by men otherwise intelligent to prove that baptism must’ be of no consequence or im-portance else Paul would have wanted to baptize as many as possible. A brief study of the entire chapter shows that Paul was here rebuking the party-ism of the Corinthian church, and is glad that he did not do the actual baptizing in many cases lest those baptized call themselves by this human name.

“Brother Childress, can you tell me where you find the Old Testament prophecy relating to automobiles.” “No, sister: I have never read any such prediction.” “Well, I hear Brother So-and-So mention it in his sermon one night.” I had heard Brother So-and-So mention what he thought referred to automobiles. He had quoted Nahum 2:4 : “The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like lightnings.” Nahum is merely pronouncing a detailed curse on Nineveh; here, as elsewhere, false ideas are quickly dispelled by studying the context.

“For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together” (Matthew 24:28). A careful study of the Olivet discourse throws such light on this verse that we can only regard with profound amazement the interpretation given by one brother, who shall remain unnamed. This unnamed brother used this verse as a “proof-text” to show that Christians should meet on the first day of the week to break bread!' A sister living in North Texas once exclaimed: “Oh, I feel sorry for Mrs. Blank’s family; they can’t pray in their home.” She was asked to explain her statement. “Why, Mr. Blank didn’t let the carpenter put a single closet in that whole house.” Of course, our beloved sister had in mind the words—though not the meaning—of Matthew 6:6 : “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

While discussing the question of context, I want to bring up that sorely misused passage: “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8). Many a covetous brother has run thither, thinking he had found shelter and protec-tion. He knows nothing of the verses above or below. This teaching was given to force men to do their duty rather than to impose extra and unfair burdens on the church. In other words, it teaches giving- more instead of excusing giving less!

We are often guilty of “getting a good lesson” from passages, which the author did not put there. Romans 14:23 reads: “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” The word “faith” is here evidently used to mean “conscience”; in Romans 10:17 and Hebrews 11:1; Hebrews 11:6 “faith” indicates belief and trust; in Ephesians 4:5 and Jude 1:3 “faith” refers to the entire body of Christian doctrine.

6. The Bible is misunderstood because of our desire (conscious or unconscious) to force its teachings to harmonize with our preconceived ideas. The late Dr. H. Clay Trumbull gives this interesting account of a mischievous boy whose habits were none of the best. His grandmother took it on herself to re-prove the boy for staying out at night, arguing that the night is the time for sleep, whereas the day should be devoted to activity. Entirely unabashed, the boy said, “Grandmother, the Bible teaches just the opposite, and I can prove it.” He proceeded to quote 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 : “Therefore, let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night, and they that be drunken are drunk in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober.” He continued his argument in this fashion: the Lord doesn’t want us to be like those who drink at at night or sleep at night; Christians are taught to watch or stay awake during the hours of darkness. This young man was much like the preacher who goes to Isaiah 52:15 to prove that immersion is not baptism: “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” I knew one elderly clergyman who counted the number of times some form of the word “sprinkle” appears in the Bible, and showed that “immerse” wasn’t to be found, and rested his argument there. He is in the same class with the woman who knew that the Bible authorized the Methodist episcopacy because she could find the word “bishop” in several places.

It is not at all uncommon for us to try to make Jesus’ parables “go on all fours”. I believe I am safe in saying that each parable was given to drive home one particular point.

Dr. C. I. Scofield, the editor of the well-known Scofield Reference Bible, a leading light among premil- lenialists and “dispensationansis,” feels free to interpret the kingdom parables of our Lord so as to harmonize them with his complicated theories. For instance, in Matthew 13:44, Jesus said, “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buy- eth that field.” Dr. Scofield explains that the hid treasure is Israel, yet to be restored: Christ bought the field (the world) with His blood because He particularly desired the treasure (the nation of Israel)! In Matthew 13:45-46 the kingdom of heaven is said to be like “unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” Although these two parables evidently reinforce each other and teach the same lesson, Dr. Scofield asserts that the pearl is the church, whereas the treasure is literal fleshly Israel. If common sense plays any part in interpretation, the Savior in these three verses simply portrays the surpassing value of His kingdom in contrast with the lesser values of wordly possessions and honors. Did you ever hear any one try to prove that we should use instrumental music in Christian worship because, when the prodigal son returned to the father’s home, the elder son while in the field heard “music and dancing” (Luke 15:25) ? Such a misuse of Scripture is to be deplored by all who love the truth of God.

Moreover, it is just as wrong to “stretch” types and anti-types as it is to misinterpret parables. Some of use seem to invent types. Peter does find a parallel in the waters of the flood and the waters of baptism; but that does not give us leave to compare Noah’s ark to the church. Peter teaches that Noah’s household was saved “by water” from the wicked state or condition of the antediluvian world; he does not teach or mention their salvation “by the ark” from the raging flood (1 Peter 3:20-21). When I was a little lad, I often ate at the home of an elderly man, who thought that his children should never object to the food on the table. His favorite verse was 1 Corinthians 10:27 :“whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience’ sake.” It served the old gentleman’s purpose inasmuch as the children were silenced, but I always did think he misapplied the Scripture; and, when I grew older I investigated it for myself. Nowadays, I do not always eat what is set before me, but it isn’t a matter of conscience.

Several months ago, after hearing me preach about the one body, a lady in a private conversation took it upon herself to justify denominationalism in this manner: “We have a multiplicity of churches today; there were a multiplicity of churches in John’s day, for did not he write the book of Revelation to the seven churches of Asia? If such a condition was right then, it is right today.” Her intense longing to justify a sinful condition led her to misapply the teaching of God’s word. To those who believe the theory of “inbred sin” Psalms 51:5 is proof conclusive that they are unerringly correct: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This verse does not say what their theory teaches, but they are blind enough to think so. David is referring to his evil environment, and not to his supposed inherited depravity. I am just reminded of the Baptist father who warned his son: “Now don’t spend time trying to study the parables be-fore you are rooted and grounded in the Baptist faith, for you might get apostacy from them.” To the mind obsessed with the idea of earthly per-fection and sinlessness (a Pentecostal or a Nazarene) Hebrews 12:14 means just this: “Unless you are made sinless by the Holy Spirit’s second work of grace, you cannot reach heaven.” What the verse really says is this: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” The next verse con-tinues: “Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God.” Such a mind, of course, has a set, pecu-liar definition for such terms as “sanctify,” “sanctification,” and “holiness.”

I am thinking of another passage which is constantly misapplied and misinterpreted: “For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest’ any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Some religionists have a theory that obedience on the part of the sinner has nothing whatsoever to do with his election and salvation; and they, of course, try to make this passage fit their human theory. To their minds, the grace of God cancels the necessity for active obedience on the part of the sinner. Were you ever told that the word of God must be ac-companied by the direct, illuminating presence of the Spirit before it could be comprehended? Were you ever told that the Bible, is a dead letter and an enigma to those who have not come in personal contact with the Spirit of God? Have you ever heard the Sacred Writings termed “the mere word”? Those who teach such nonsense almost invariably quote in self-defense these words from 2 Corinthians 3:6 : “For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Only the most deluded of theorists could fail to see that Paul is here contrasting the old covenant with the new, the Jewish law and the Christian gospel. But the misinterpretation has spread far and Wide.

Advocates of the “direct call to the ministry” deem it wrong for any one to preach unless he can claim such a miraculous call. (Of course, their conference or synod or what-not may pass judgment on the validity of such a call; and thus have the power to veto and nullify the Lord’s decision!) In defense of this position, they refer us to Hebrews 5:4 : “And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” The writer is here referring to the office of the high priest, to which Christ had been called, just as was Aaron. There is not the remotest hint of God’s supernatural intervention in the life of some ploughboy that he might become a denominational clergyman! But my brethren are guilty, too, at times. We are not always above using a misapplied quotation for the purpose of defeating our opponents in argument or debate! I never shall forget the earnest brother who was hotly defending the use of the “individual cups” in the communion service against the claims of a “one- cup” friend. His line of argument ran like this: “The Bible says ‘Drink ye all of it/ Each communicant can not fulfill that command unless he empties his cup or glass; therefore, we must have a separate and distinct cup for every member present.” “All” doesn’t refer to the contents, but our brother did not let that worry him. He needed a twisted interpretation to sustain his argument. In our zeal we have not been content to prove that instrumental music in Christian worship is unauthorized by the New Testament; we have dared to deny the right of the Jews to use the harp in Old Testament times. I do not think that there is a man living who can prove that the Jews sinned in using instruments of music in their temple worship. You are no doubt thinking of the sixth chapter of Amos just now. Yes, it reads like this: “Woe to them that chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instru-ments of music like David” (Amos 6:1-5). But the same passage pronounces a woe on those who are “at ease in Zion”—those “that lie on beds of ivory” and “eat the lambs of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall”! The truth of the matter is this: Amos is here referring to the decadence of Israel; he isn’t considering their worship as such at all! Jehovah was displeased with their whole manner of living. In the fifth chapter, Amos does refer to their worship, but God is said to reject their assemblies, their feast days, their sacrifices and offerings, as well as their music, both vocal and instrumental. But who dares to say that the Lord himself had not originally ordered their assemblies, sacrifices, and music? Their loose living—not their instrumental music had invalidated their worship. It is absolute folly to question the use of instrumental music in Old Testament times by misapplying Amos’ warnings to an unrighteous people.

I expect that nearly all of us have preached or heard sermons showing that baptism is the final act of obed-ience that puts the alien sinner in Christ. It is, but we have in one instance used unfair tactics in trying to prove our position. Here is the old familiar outline, too: (1) Believe UNTO righteousness (Romans 10:10): (2) Repentance UNTO life (Acts 11:18); (3) Confession UNTO salvation (Romans 10:10); and (4) Baptism INTO Christ (Galatians 3:27). It is such a pretty, convincing outline that I was shocked and nearly heart-broken when I found that, while “unto” and “into” are different words with different meanings in English, in our Greek Testament “unto” and “into” are one and the same! The Greek word eis is sometimes translated “unto” and sometimes “into.” We cannot honestly make a play upon the difference between the two English prepositions for that difference does not exist in the original text.

Don’t misunderstand me. I believe that it' is right and proper to use more than one glass in partaking of the fruit of the vine. I believe with all my heart that instrumental music in Christian worship violates God’s will, and I am fully persuaded that baptism is the culminative act in the sinner’s coming to Christ; but I do not want to use a faulty argument to sustain a good position. Eternal watchfulness must be the price we pay if we remain loyal to what God’s word says, instead of being merely loyal to what we want to believe! Sincerity and openmindedness must ever characterize the honest Bible student.

7. The Bible is Misunderstood by Readers Whose Minds are Confused or Blank as to Chronology, His-torical and Geographic Background, and Literary Peculiarities.

Public speakers, I am thoroughly convinced, take too much for granted. It is no uncommon thing for the brightest minds in an average congregation to confuse Bible characters of the same name, some of whom liv-ed in different centuries. King Saul and Saul of Tarsus ; Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Joseph the son of Jacob; Ananias, the Liar and Ananias, who baptized Saul; Lazarus, the beggar and Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead; James the martyred apostle and James the elder; John the forerunner and John the beloved apostle—all such characters puzzle a vast number of people.

Nine-tenths of the preachers do not know the approximate distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. I am ashamed to confess how little I know of the topography of Palestine. Those who stop to think about it at all sometimes wonder why a king ruled over Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ birth, whereas Judea was governed directly by a Roman governor at the time of the crucifixion. Paul’s epochal missionary tours are pretty dry and meaningless to many who have never studied his travels with the help of a good map. A diligent reader might have memorized the New Testament and still fail to grasp Jesus’ reference to putting a new piece of cloth in an old garment or his reference to putting new wine in old bottles. A knowl-edge of contemporary customs and manners is necessary before one can see the propriety and beauty of these comparisons. Not until I was grown did I know why new cloth in an old garment would make the rent worse, or why new wine would destroy old bottles (Matthew 9:16-17).

Only woeful ignorance of life in the first century of our era could account for the following humorous in-cident. This story has been told many times, but is well worth repeating. I first read it in an old issue of the Optimist several years ago. “Can anybody in this Bible class tell me what Cornelius’ occupation was?” asked the instructor. “He was a musician,” came the answer. “How did you find that out?” inquired the astonished teacher. “Why, that’s just as plain as can be. The Bible says that he belonged to the Roman band!” The Bibles in common circulation are deficient from the standpoint of typography. On this account much of the prophetic and poetic portions of the Bible appears to be a barren wilderness of words. We cannot tell who the speaker is in many instances; the dramatic personage in the Song of Solomon and elsewhere are not introduced. The use of quotation marks would go a long way toward clarifying many Bible passages for the modern reader.

8. The Bible is Misunderstood Because Many Readers Fail to take all the Evidence given on any Single Topic under Consideration.

If I want the Lord’s teaching on the topic of “eternal life,” I make a sad mistake by picking one text' and disregarding all other passages that treat of the same topic. In John 6:47 we read: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” But the wise student will not stop here: he will read and compare such texts as Matthew 25:46; Romans 2:7-8; Jude 1:21 :; 1 John 2:24-25; Titus 1:2; Titus 3:7; Mark 10:30; Galatians 6:8 and so on.

Similiarly, we ought to study all the answers to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” I ought' to collate all the scriptures on faith, repentance, baptism, the kingdom of heaven, the second coming of Christ, the judgment, and the church. Such broad investigation will forever do away with the heresy of “salvation by faith only,” as well as many of the amusing tenets of our anti-Sunday school brethren. The fable of the blind men and the elephant fittingly teaches the lesson I have in mind. A group of blind men had long desired to examine an elephant, and at the first opportunity they did so, going to “see” the monster one at a time. Later, when they had assembled to compare notes, each had a different conception of the elephant. The first blind man said: “An elephant is like a tree trunk; I know, because I felt him with my own hands.” The second blind man stated, “An elephant is like a wall. I leaned against this elephant, and I am convinced that he is broad and strong and flat like a wall.” The third investigator exclaimed, “You’re both absurd. An elephant is decidely similar to a serpent.” The fourth made this report: “An elephant' is like a palm leaf.” The argument waxed hot and furious. At length the four blind men called a friend with two good eyes to settle the matter. After listening patiently to what all had to say, he summed the matter up in this fashion: “You are all partly right. An elephant’s legs are like tree trunks; his sides are like walls; his trunk or snout is similar to a serpent; and his ears resemble palm leaves. Here is your trouble: none of you investigated long enough. Each learned a fraction of the truth, and failed to add the truth that his companions had discovered. Accept all the truth contained in these reports about the elephant and you will then begin to realize what the elephant looks like.” In conclusion, I take the liberty of asking your aid in learning little by little the truth God has in these sacred pages for the children of Adam’s race. You may see cobwebs that have blinded me; if so, brush them aside and receive my heartfelt thanks. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”