I am amazed when I hear of some strange new doctrine developed around a twisted Bible prophecy. It is truly pathetic to see the scriptures misused. A countless number of churches and cults have been established because of distorted Bible prophecies.
One example would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim that the Watchtower Society is the messenger mentioned in Malachi 3:1, "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."
Clearly, the scriptures reveal to us that Malachi was not speaking of the Watchtower Society, based in New York City, but rather of John the Baptist. We know this because Matthew 11:10,11 tells us: "For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
We have not been left in the dark regarding this messenger's identity. If it was John the Baptist, then it can't be the Watch Tower Society, regardless whether they claim to be "the messenger." Jesus applied the prophecy to John the Baptist.
I remember Kelly Ellis saying to those of us whom he was instructing in Danville, KY, "When the Bible says, this is that, then that is it!" I understood that any key to interpreting Bible prophecy must come from the prophecy's revelation through the inspired apostles. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." {2 Peter 1:20,21} "How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets." {Ephesians 3:3-5}
Joel's prophecy is another classic example. In Joel 2:28-32, we have the prophecies concerning "the last days" and "salvation for those who call on the name of the Lord." When did we enter the "last days"? On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said "this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel." (Acts 2:16-21). Brethren, we know when the "last days" began, and the time period to which the "last days" referred. Joel's prophecy did not pertain to an earthly kingdom, but to the establishment of the church. Peter correctly applied that Bible prophecy in his sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2).
Another example is in Amos 9:11,12 where it says, "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this." How can I know the event to which Amos referred? I would not know UNLESS it was revealed in the New Testament. It just so happens that in Acts 15:15,16, James gave the correct application of this prophecy.
Its fulfillment began at that time, and in that generation. It is fulfilled in the Christian dispensation, and in the church that Christ established. We know because James quoted the passage and applied it.
Having given you some sensible understanding of Bible prophecy and correct Bible interpretation of prophecy through New-Testament application, I want to give you some illustrations of irrational and illogical interpretations of prophecy. People are willing to ignore the proper use of a text, in order to drum up a doctrine or defend some sort of theory.
Recently, I have been studying the Bible with one of these strange prophetic interpreters. Let me explain the faulty reasoning with which this person is associated. It begins with a false theory. This doctrine teaches that the "lost tribes of Israel" migrated to Britain, and from there, they established God's real throne--the throne of King George and other Kings of the British empire. So, they conclude that Great Britain and its people are really the true Israel of God and that because of prophecy, one day through Great Britain, Christ will reign and rule on the throne, because God is with Great Britain. WOW! I know, I thought the same thing. Where in the world did such a theory originate?
Someone conjured up a theory and has twisted Bible prophecy to fit the theory. One way they do this is by going to Genesis 48:19,20, where Jacob, by blessing Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, also blessed Joseph. "And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.
Now folks, let's examine the source of the false doctrine. Its proponents take this verse, without a "this is that" from the New Testament, and say, "Ephraim shall be called great, and we know Ephraim referred to the northern tribes of Israel, so since Ephraim is called great, there you have it--GREAT BRITAIN." If there ever was a giant, unfounded, and unsubstantiated claim, this is it!
They go on to say that Manasseh is the United States. Why? Since through their seed a multitude of nations should come, and since the United States originated with people who came over from Britain, etc. So, from this false application of prophecy stems another false doctrine which has people believing that Britain is the hope of Christ's kingdom. In examining this ridiculous twisting of the verse, it is evident that the passage nowhere says Ephraim "shall be called great." It simply says that Ephraim shall be greater then Manasseh. The very verse they use to substantiate their doctrine, which names Ephraim as Great Britain, is false. The verse does not match the theory.
Recently, my daughter and another girl have been having a discussion. She told my daughter that Revelation 9:9 is speaking of helicopters. Read it and see if you possess such an incredible imagination. It says, "And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle." To fit modern warfare into this passage, the premillennialists dream up the idea that this is speaking about helicopters. Again, no other verses to substantiate this interpretation; its their own.
With this kind of mumbo jumbo interpretation of prophecies, we can imagine and apply anything.
I heard that someone said they could show from the Bible that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't know the verses the man used, but let me make an attempt. Deuteronomy 33:14 KJV says, "And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon..." So, the moon brings forth precious things. I know that cheese is precious, and in Job 10:10 it says, "Thou hast curdled me like cheese." Psalms 8:3 KJV says, "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained..." I see; God ordained the moon and curdled the cheese! One of the precious things brought forth by the moon is cheese, which God has ordained. But is the moon made of green cheese? Job 8:16 KJV says, "He is green before the sun, and his branch shooteth forth in his garden." What else is green before the sun? Why, of course, the moon is before the sun. So, there we have it. The moon is made of green cheese! How ridiculous. Unless we interpret Bible prophecy in light of New Testament revelation and see where the Holy apostles and prophets applied it, we open a big can of worms.
Let me conclude with Foy Wallace's excerpt from the book "God's Prophetic Word," in which he addressed a slew of unfounded and absurd misapplications of Bible verses used out of context. Foy Wallace Jr. Said: "I was in a discussion with a millennialist a few years ago who strung out a long line of Old Testament prophecies and asserted that they referred to the second coming of Christ and the millennium. He offered no proof for his assertion. He simply cited many prophecies-no argument, no analysis, just a long string of prophecies--and with an air of triumph said to me: 'Answer them.'
I do not answer scripture, I believe the scriptures, but I like to be accommodating, so I answered 'them' after the fashion of the sermon given by a colored preacher, who spoke on this wise: 'In dem days come John de Baptist preachin' in de wilderness ob Judah. An' he preached onto midnight, an' a man fell out de window an' broke hisself in pieces: an' de 'postle Paul come down and picked up twelve baskets uf fragments, an' de swine come along, an' de all entered into de swine, an' rushed down a steep hill an' perished in de sea, an' whose wife shall she be in de resurrection, 'cause dey all had her!" I said to my prophecy-quoting opponent-you answer 'them!' In every syllable of the colored preacher's sermon was scripture - but somewhat scrambled. So these prophecy preachers will take a lot of passages, scramble them together, turn around, and ask us to unscramble them..."
Brethren, I feel the same way. How do we unscramble eggs? Maybe I should have named this article "Scrambled Verses," because this is exactly what happens. Then they expect us to do the unscrambling.
I am still amazed that a clear verse, such as Mark 9:1, where Jesus spoke to the people of His day and said, "This generation shall not see death until the kingdom of God come with power" could be distorted. The Jehovah's Witnesses say, "This generation was the generation of 1914, those who saw World War II." Again, I find this unbelievable!
How can "this generation" become the generation of 1914? I suppose it's because the Jehovah's Witnesses said so. However, that is not what the scripture says. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses have now changed this false doctrine, since almost all 1914 veterans are dead, but they preached it for years.
It's no wonder the world is confused. Anyone who listens to all these mumbo-jumbo prophecies would be confused. We must interpret the scriptures correctly. If an inspired, New Testament writer has not shown us the meaning of a verse, we had better leave it alone. Scripture must be understood in the light of clear Bible teaching. Unless we have evident, New Testament revelation, we must not believe and follow doctrine that is built around "what someone says a verse means."
Brother McPherson had done a good job of showing how difficult it is to discuss the scriptures with folks who have arrived at faulty understandings of passages. When we lived in Nevada, I had the same problems discussing the truth with the Mormons. During discussions regarding the differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, I correctly pointed out that the Bible, in Micah 5:2 and in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Book of Mormon states that He would be born in Jerusalem. Why the difference? The Mormons answer--"in the Book of Mormon, the prophet was speaking to a different audience." What difference would the audience make in determining the Messiah's birthplace? Regardless where we are--in Nevada, or here in Ohio--if you ask me where I was born, my answer is the same--Indiana!
Just the other day, a Church-of-God preacher and I were discussing our differences. The discussion got around to what he believes about baptism. He believes that "Baptism is a church ordinance, a good work, that we practice in the church." I asked: is it essential for one's salvation? He quickly replied "No!" I asked Him if He believes John 14:15. He said he does. I asked if he believes that Mark 16:16 was a command? Yes, he does. Then how can he reconcile these passages with his answer to the previous question concerning whether or not baptism is essential for salvation? He said he has no problem reconciling the two passages. Unbelievable!
We discussed our differences concerning the eldership, Holy Spirit, eternal security, instrumental music, and church sponsorship of social events. He laid his hand on my shoulder and said, "we're not that far apart in our understanding of the scriptures." I asked him if, considering our different conclusions, we could both go to heaven. Absolutely! I don't understand how this can be possible. Dear reader, if you have an answer, I would be grateful for your insight!
What can we do when people twist and pervert the scriptures? All I know to do is point them back to the context and emphasize the harmony of God's book. Honest hearts will do the math. Don't be discouraged. Remember, God commands us to take advantage of our opportunities to teach others, whenever we have such opportunities. He will give the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6-8. (KMG)