False Interpretation and False Teaching in the True Church of God-Glenn Conjurske

False Interpretation and False Teaching
in the True Church of God

by Glenn Conjurske

“Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21:21-23).

Here is a clear example of the kind of “Bible interpretation” and “Bible teaching” which take place every day in the church of God. People hear or read some word of the Lord, and immediately jump to conclusions, often conclusions which have scarcely the vaguest resemblance to what God actually says, and yet they will quote their text with the utmost confidence, as undoubted proof of their unwarranted conclusion. It is often perfectly amazing to see the scriptures which Christians will quote in support of their notions—-scriptures which have only the vaguest resemblance, or none at all, to the conclusions which are extracted from them.

Here is a case in point, concerning the antichrist. The Bible says, “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” (Rev. 13:16-18). This scripture being duly cited, we are then informed that the pope has the number 666 in his crown, and the conclusion is, the papacy is the antichrist. But granting that the pope wears the number 666 in his crown (which I, however, know nothing about), what has that to do with this, or this with that? The text says not one word about the antichrist wearing the number 666 himself, but of his causing all others to wear it—-and not in their crowns, by the way, but in their right hands or in their foreheads.

Now it is very probable that the conclusion in this reasoning is not the conclusion at all, but actually the premise. This is the thing held first, before the Scriptures are examined, and then the Scriptures are ransacked in order to find something to base it upon. This is the method of a great deal of so-called Bible study, and when such is the method which is used, it is little wonder if the proof texts don’t prove anything. Nevertheless, it is the failure to think which underlies such interpretation. Such interpretation is only possible when people do not think. Any kind of vague resemblance is taken for proof, though there is no relationship between the premise and the conclusion.

Another clear example will illustrate this. To prove the doctrine of limited atonement, Calvinists commonly quote, “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.” (Eph. 5:25). They press home, of course, their own view of the matter, that this means that Christ died for the church only, and for none else. But the text says nothing whatever about that, and if these folks would only engage their minds to think, they would soon see that by the very same reasoning (or lack thereof) they may also prove that Christ died only for Paul, for the same man who wrote “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it,” says that he “loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20). Now it is as plain as the noonday that if the latter text does not prove that Christ died for Paul only, then the former does not prove that he died for the church only. It has nothing to say to the subject. Yet for nearly half a millennium Calvinists have been quoting this text to prove limited atonement, all of them together failing to think far enough to realize the fallacy of the argument. And that in the face of very plain and indisputable texts which affirm such things as that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” (I Tim. 2:6).

This is exactly the kind of thing which happened in John 21:23. One or more of the immediate disciples of Christ, who heard his saying concerning John, immediately jumped to conclusion that John would never die, but live on till the coming of Christ and the rapture of the church. That conclusion was not warranted by the words which Jesus had spoken. He had said nothing about it, one way or the other. Yet so confident were these unthinking disciples of the truth of their conclusion, that they spread it abroad among the brethren. And not only so. If there was one unthinking disciple to draw such a baseless inference in the first place, there were a thousand more to accept it and help to spread it abroad. The saying went abroad among the brethren—-not among the heathen, or the cultists, nor the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, not the idolaters or the pagans, but “among the brethren”—-good people, true disciples, sincere Christians, who possessed the Spirit of God to teach them all things, and lead them into all truth. Yet he could not teach them if they would not think, but credulously swallow whatever notion arose in the mind of another disciple, who was no more thinking than they were themselves.

No doubt the prophecy mongers of the day had a great time with this saying. They could point to John’s great age with great confidence—-and greater confidence with every passing year—-as an undoubted sign of the times, a sure indication of the soon coming of Christ. “John is very advanced in years. All of the other apostles are long since dead. John is feeble in health and worn out with labors. He can’t last much longer. The coming of Christ must be near!”

But the answer to such confusion is simple enough. It consists of two simple steps. The first is, Quote the text. That alone ought to be sufficient, and no doubt would be, if men had minds engaged to think—-assuming they have hearts honest enough to admit the legitimate conclusions. But since many do not, another step is necessary. It must be borne in mind that it was with the very words of the Lord in their hands that men first formulated this false inference from them. One step more is therefore necessary, and this one is amply sufficient for those whose hearts are honest. The second step is simply to point out what the text says, and does not say. And this is John’s whole answer to the false interpretation which was so spread abroad in his day. He simply says, “Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

I have seen in our own day an example of exactly the same kind of interpretation as was spread abroad among the brethren of the apostolic church. Some years ago I heard it confidently affirmed on the basis of Matthew 24:32-34 that the coming of Christ, and the rapture of the church, must take place by 1988. The text says, “Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” The reasoning (or lack of it) affirmed,

1.The fig tree is Israel.

2.The budding of the fig tree is the restoration of Israel to statehood, which took place in 1948.

3.A generation is forty years at the farthest.

4.Therefore the rapture of the church must take place by 1988.

Now it may be legitimately questioned whether the fig tree does indeed represent Israel. Perhaps so, perhaps not. This should be proved, not assumed. But supposing that the fig tree does represent Israel, how is it to be proved that the budding of the fig tree represents Israel’s advancement to statehood? Other events would seem to fit better, such as the first world Zionist conference, in 1897. But though that might fit the budding of the fig tree better, it does not fit the theory so well. That generation has passed away. And who is to limit a generation to forty years? It might be fifty. We may, of course, state with confidence that the rapture did not take place in 1988, but there is a shorter method by which to deal with these things. We need only point out what the text says. It does not say, “When ye see the budding of the fig tree, know that it (the coming of Christ) is near.” No, but “When ye see all these things, know that it is near.” When ye see all what things? Wars and rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, persecutions and betrayals, false prophets, and the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place. And when that takes place, the rapture of the church will be past already. Thus this great clamor which was spread abroad among the disciples a few years ago proves to be a mere empty bubble, like the report that John would not die. The doctrine has no relationship to what the text says.

The report that John would not die teaches us also the worthlessness of tradition, even “apostolic tradition.” It was in the apostolic church in its purest days that this report was spread abroad among the brethren. Yet it was nothing to be depended upon. From this we must turn to the actual words of the Lord, to what God actually says, and there we find a sufficient safeguard against every flying report and false interpretation.

Glenn Conjurske