Like Button

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Abusing the Bible

Islam is a religion of the book. They believe that their book itself is sacred. They frown on translating it because it's sacred. Physically disrespecting or abusing the Qur'an is blasphemy. Beware the consequences. Christianity, too, is a religion of the book, in a sense. We, of course, differ from Islam, however, in that we don't recognize the physical book to be sacred. We value it because God breathed it, but it is "the breath of God", so to speak, that is sacred, not the text or the paper or ... well, you get the idea.

This does not mean that the Bible does not get abused. It does. And I'm not talking about physical abuse. It is painful sometimes to watch the abuse that people apply to the texts of Scripture.

One of my all-time favorites is John 3:16. What we have here, apparently, is failure to communicate. While most English-speaking readers are understanding Jesus to say, "God loved the world so much ..." -- an affirmation of God's great love for every single human being on the planet -- Jesus actually said, "God loved the world in this way ..." The "so" in the text is like the English phrase, "You must do this task just so." It isn't a matter of quantity -- "so much" -- but a matter of quality -- "in this way". Jesus said most literally, "God loved the world in this way" followed by a description of the way in which God loved the world: He sent His Son for those who would believe. I'm pretty sure you can see that this is not, then, a grand expression of God's deep and abiding love for each and every human being equally. It just isn't in the text.

Philippians 4:3 is an ever popular verse, especially among the positive thinkers. "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." Nice "yank-out-of-context" verse. It is not about doing whatever I set my mind to. It is about doing something most people wouldn't even consider possible -- "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content." Paul says that as hard as this is to imagine, Christ gives him the power for ("can do all" = "have all power for") that which Christ wants him to do. Not "whatever I set my mind to." Sorry, but this verse does not support the ever-popular notion that God is our divine butler.

One that I really need to hit is 1 Cor 6:19. You know that one. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit ...?" What do we know from this? Well, we know "Thou shalt not smoke cigarettes" and "Thou shalt not get tattoos" and certainly "Thou shalt not smoke pot" and any other pet peeve of the day you might want to deal with. Of course, that requires a serious yank out of context ... and a seriously bad place to end up. The context is not smoking cigarettes or the like. The context is sexual immorality. The prior verse says, "Flee sexual immorality", and this one is telling you why. Why? Because your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?" (1 Cor 6:16). The bad place you end up if you try to take this one in the popular sense? Well, if it is saying that you need to treat your body like the temple of the Holy Spirit, then we are in for radical changes to our lifestyles. No more Twinkies, that's for sure. Is your body weight optimum? Do you live in a city? Do you know that almost all cities are bad for your health in terms of pollution, stress, etc.? Do you drive? Isn't that an unwarranted risk of the temple? Oh, this is not going to be pretty if you really want this verse to go there. It doesn't.

From the skeptic side there are a host of really happening verses with which to beat Christians over the head. I'm sure you know them. In the past few years, for instance, John 3:16 dropped from the position of most recognized verse of the Bible and was replaced by Matt 7:1 -- "Judge not, lest you be judged." I don't doubt you've been dealt a blow or two from that bat. Little hint here. That's not what it means. We know this because Jesus goes on to describe how we should judge (Like "Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 5:7) and "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matt 7:15ff) -- both explanations of judging.) Jesus wasn't saying not to judge. He was saying not to judge wrongly -- that you will be judged by the same standard you use (Matt 7:2).

In today's political climate, an ever-popular one is 2 Chron 7:14. You know that one: "... if My people who are called by My name humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." Interesting that no one seems to ever put the beginning of that sentence in the quote: "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people ..." (2 Chron 7:13). The promise is to the people of Israel when God promised drought and locust and pestilence. Interesting also is that we appear to be most interested in the "heal their land" part and not really so dedicated to the "humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways" part. But the point is that this was a promise to Solomon at a particular time for a particular purpose. It is not a universal promise. We can be sure that if God's people (not the nation, God's people) "humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways", God will do what is best for us. We do know we are forgiven. But counting on "heal their land" from that passage isn't reasonable. Count on "He will do what is right".

We all know the Great Commission. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt 28:19-20). We have all seen it abused. Note that the Great Commission is not about evangelism. Sharing the Gospel is in there, but if that's where you stop, you didn't read the Great Commission and you end up with a "sort of nice" commission. Jesus commanded His disciples not to "spread the gospel", but to make disciples. He outlined how that is to occur. 1) Go (literally "as you are going"). 2) Baptize them. 3) Teach them to observe all that Christ commanded. If that's a "share a tract and run" commission to you, you're missing the biggest part. We are not commanded to make converts. We are commanded to build disciples.

Or how about 1 John 4:18? "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear." See? It is wrong to fear God because He loves us perfectly. Yeah? Are you sure you want to go there? The Bible is full of warnings about the failure to fear God. More importantly, the context doesn't support it. The text is not talking about God's perfect love. It is about our love for God. It is speaking about perfecting His love in us (1 John 4:17). When we learn to love God perfectly, we will have nothing to fear from God "for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love" (the rest of 1 John 4:18). Now, if you believe you have arrived at perfect love for God, you might have an argument. (Might.) Until then, this is recommending you have a holy fear of God (see also Heb 12:5-11). Here's a little hint, though. When you find a verse that appears to contradict the bulk of Scripture, be very careful in settling happily on that contradiction.

Some are less common. The "prayer of Jabez" (1 Chron 4:9-10) has been touted as a universal formula for riches. Really? Where does that come from in the text? He prayed. God blessed in the way God blessed. That's the story. That doesn't equate to "It works this way for everyone." I've heard some suggest that the Mormons are guilty of Rev 22:18. "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book..." Come on, folks. The LDS have added their own book of "Scripture", but this warning is specifically about "The revelation of Jesus Christ", the book in the Bible that occupies the last spot in our Bibles. Perhaps the Hal Lindseys of our age might want to take note and be cautious, but this is not about adding to (or taking away from) the Bible. Or how about Matt 18:20? That warm bit about "when two or more are gathered, there I am in the midst of them." It's good, but it's not about your local Bible study. It's about church discipline. The "two or more" are meeting to remove the one who has refused to repent. Jesus's presence is for the authority required to do the discipline. After all, God is omnipresent. Do you really think it's about His "presence"? And then there is Luke 18:25. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The singularly most common explanation is that there was a gate in Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle" and camels couldn't get through this man-sized gate without removing their load ... like rich people have to do to get into heaven. Problem #1: No record of any such gate has ever been found. Problem #2: If it was just hard, why did the disciples react the way they did? "Then who can be saved?" (Luke 18:26). Jesus would have said, "Well, I just told you. The camel who gets on his knees and drops his load. Come on, guys, keep up!" Problem #3: Jesus didn't say it was hard (like it would be to unload a camel); He said it was impossible (Luke 18:27). The text is not about the difficulty, but the impossibility of getting into heaven. The only answer, according to Jesus, was, "What is impossible with men is possible with God" (Luke 18:27).

Those are just a few. See how many you can come up with.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

lol how about "many hands makes the load light". Which is not actually in the Bible but everyone uses it and think it is a Biblical parable or teaching.

I enjoyed this, it helps to point out that you need to be critically thinking no matter who or what is being said even when a leader or pastor is preaching. Look up the verses and read it in context your self.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Neil had a similar post recently.

My "favorite" abused texts include these which I have written about on my blog:

Rev. 22:18-19, which in context is only about the book of Revelation. I get so many hateful comments for saying that.

Exod. 20:5 and Deut. 5:9 which are used to teach the idea of "generational sin."

Jeremiah 10:2-5: the claim is that it speaks about the Christmas tree, which is why Christians shouldn't have one.

Jeremiah 29:11: People think this is about individual persons!

2 Chron 7:14. I whole-heartedly agree that this is one of the most abused for political purposes. I did an article on this and some of the commenters were not at all happy about my analysis.

Oh, the Prayer of Jabez. I had to review that one! The book was given to graduates of Emmaus Bible College!!!!

Stan said...

Yeah, Neil's post (and your comment) was what got me started on it.

I included your mention of Rev 22 and 2 Chron 7. I've also seen people try to roll the Jer 10 reference to point to Christmas trees. People, please! Think!! And that whole Jabez thing ... sheesh! A lot (of nothing, as it turns out) made out of two verses or so.

I'm not entirely sure about Jer 29:11 -- I read it a lot like Rom 8:28. And since I hold to Rom 8:28, I don't see a problem with Jer 29:11. It obviously isn't a catch-all ("God loves everybody and plans good things for them"), but I still read it along the lines of Rom 8:28.

I don't get the Exo 20:5 issue. It may be because I'm not up on the "generational sin" concept to which you refer. It may be because I still consider the 10 Commandments in effect while you don't. I have seen a tendency in the children that their parents had.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jeremiah 29:11 is about God's plan for the nation of Israel. It isn't about individual people. Rom. 8:28 is a general statement about how God works. Big difference.

If you haven't heard about "generational sin" and "generational curses" you have really missed out! Bill Gothard is a big proponent of this, and Beth Moore teaches it a bit. But there are many other groups which do likewise. If you read my report on it, you'll understand:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/12/generational-singenerational-curses.html

Craig said...

I would add the 3 parables in Matthew 25 to the list of often abused passages.

Stan said...

Glenn, I am familiar with Bill Gothard but never heard of the "generational sins" concept. I'll have to read up on it.

Craig, how are those three (ten virgins, the servants and the talents, sheep and the goats) abused?

David said...

I heard Leviticus 17:14 referenced on a tv show as a reason to allow embryonic research.

Craig said...

Ten virgins, probably not so much.

The talents is often used in the context of spiritual gifts.

The Sheep/Goats is often used to justify a works based salvation.

That's the quick version.

Stan said...

David, are you sure about that reference? "For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off." If that's the correct reference, "This allows embryonic stem cell research" isn't a stretch; it's completely off the radar.

Craig, amen on the sheep and the goats. Even if they don't go to "salvation by works", I've heard "the only difference was what they did and didn't do." Not the only difference. Amazing that people take a monetary unit ("talents") and convert it to an English word ("talents"), but that's not the same as "gifts". I do see it as a warning to wisely use what God has given you. Does that not include spiritual gifts?

Craig said...

Stan,

I totally agree that the parable doesn't exclude spiritual gifts. It include how we use everything. What I most often hear is what you suggested (talents=talents=spiritual gifts). It's the easy way to go.

David said...

Yeah, its the first half of that verse "For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life." The character said that since blood doesn't enter the embryo until 20 days after conception, thus embryos taken before that point are not "alive". And since I couldn't remember the exact reference, just that he had used it, I google'd it and found a site that said the same thing. It is used by secularists as means to fight bible believers that oppose stem cell research.

Craig said...

Just last night at a Bible study someone tried to throw out the sheep and goats fallicy. When I mentioned the fact that he'd ignored the beginning of the parable, (the part where Jesus says the shee have been sheep from before time, or words to that effect), it certainly caused him to think about his conclusions. I

I really fail to see how anyone can skip that part, or smoehow take it to mean something other than what it clearly says.

" 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."


"the kingdom preared for you since the beginning of the world" seems fairly clear from where I sit.

Stan said...

I'm old, so I have Keith Green's song on the Sheep and the Goats echoing in my head. "The only difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn't do." That's the message, that's the "take away". That's wrong. The difference between the sheep and the goats was that some were sheep and some were goats. I don't know how that is missed. What they did was indicative of who they were, not vice versa. They were not sheep or goats because of what they did or didn't do.

David said...

Isn't there a similar passage that talks about sheep and goats, but they are both categories of saved people? Or am I just confusing it with the fallacy?

Stan said...

Nowhere else. See how pervasive that false teaching is?

Stan said...

Mike, there would be a whole lot of "that's not in there" stuff if we went that way, wouldn't we? (Like there was no gate in Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle", the Bible doesn't say, "The Lord helps those who help themselves", and your "many hands" illustration.)

Critical thinking is paramount ... and fast becoming a lost skill.