Bulletin Articles
CRINGE-WORTHY
CRINGE-WORTHY
I guess it’s just the “preacher” in me, but I often find myself cringing when brethren misuse the Scriptures. If it is a denominational preacher misusing the Scriptures, I kind of understand it (though it’s still cringe-worthy). But when it is a brother in Christ (or worse, a gospel preacher), I really cringe, because we should know better. Then, I cringe even more when I realize that I’ve done the same thing from time to time! With the above disclaimer clearly made, I will offer some specific examples of the cringe-worthy misuse of the Scriptures. Please understand that I do not speak from a position of superior intellect (ok, you may laugh now); nor do I say these things with glee, for I’ve made similar mistakes. But, in the words of that old saying, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” In other words, if someone doesn’t point such things out, then we’ll never grow in our understanding. So, I beg your indulgence of this fellow-laborer – who is just as fallible as you – while we try to hone our use of “the sword of the Spirit” (Ep.6:17). Consider just a few cringe-worthy examples…
1. Filthy-rag righteousness (Isa.64:6). From time to time, I hear it said that OUR righteousness is “like filthy rags,” with the application being made to the Christian’s efforts to faithfully serve the Lord. How desperately we need to read the context of this passage! The reason that the Jew’s righteousness was like “filthy rags” was because they had “sinned” – and “in these ways we continue; and we need to be saved” (v.5). This is speaking of their rebellion against God! Further, we must remember that “whoever fears Him and works righteousness is ACCEPTED by Him” (Ac.10:35); and, “he who practices righteousness IS righteous” (1Jn.3:7). Does that sound like “filthy rags” to you? No, it most certainly does not!
2. No eating in the meetinghouse (Rm.14:17). Many times, I have heard brethren (correctly) rail against the social gospel. Then, they ruin it by 1.) Misrepresenting the issue (eating in the meetinghouse is NOT the problem); and 2.) Quoting Romans 14:17 – i.e., “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking.” Brethren, please! This passage has NOTHING to do with this issue. Further, if it did, it would be teaching that we CAN eat in the meetinghouse! The entire context of Romans 14 concerns things which we have EVERY RIGHT TO DO (e.g., eating and drinking) – as long as we do not violate our convictions (v.5, 22-23) or cause another to violate his (v.13, 15, 21).
3. Christ bearing our guilt and/or penalty (Hb.9:28). Some have been tainted by Calvinistic influence far more than they realize! While the Bible certainly speaks of Christ “bearing” our sins, we grievously err when we interpret this as bearing the “guilt” of our sins. Indeed, Christ was sinless; and He HAD to be such in order to be the spotless Lamb of God (Jn.1:29; 1Pt.1:18-19; Hb.9:14). Neither did He bear the “penalty” of our sins, for that would require Him to suffer an eternity in Hell (Mt.25:46; 2Th.1:9). What Christ “bore” was the “OFFERING” for sin – not the guilt or punishment for sin. Read it carefully: “Christ was OFFERED once TO BEAR THE SINS of many” (Hb.9:28). And just “what” was offered? “His own body on the tree” (1Pt.2:24). Simple, isn’t it?
4. Reconciled through the church (Ep.2:16). With this one, I risk accusations of “minimizing the importance of the church.” But I am willing to take that risk, because anyone who knows me knows better! The text speaks of being reconciled to God “in one body” for sure; but that reconciliation is “THROUGH THE CROSS” – not the church. The church is not the MEANS (instrument or vehicle) of reconciliation, but the RESULT of reconciliation! The church does not save; it IS the saved (Ac.2:47). Christ is Savior, via the cross; and the church is those whom He has saved (Ep.5:23). The idea that the church is the means of reconciliation comes from Catholicism, not Scripture.
5. Wait for one another (1Cor.11:33). This verse is sometimes used to “prove” that all members must commune at the same time. And that, in turn, is used to “prove” that members who were absent can’t commune later on Sunday. But if such reasoning is worth a hoot, then we can’t eat the Supper until every local member is present – and who practices that? In truth, he tells them to “wait” because of internal divisions; they did not WANT to eat together! It has NO reference to someone who wants to be there, but is hindered by circumstances beyond his control (e.g., sickness). Brethren, either DO what some of you claim this passage says, or just admit that it doesn’t say what you’ve claimed!
We could find many other examples of cringe-worthy interpretations, but these will do for now!
--Lanny Smith
