Rules for Twisting Scriptures
Rules for Twisting Scriptures
Virtually all unorthodox religious groups who claim the Bible as their sole authority, also claim that their unique doctrines can be found (or are hidden) in it’s pages. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon and Mary Baker Eddy’s, Christian Science, all practice and hold completely different beliefs but claim they are in the Bible.
How can these groups claim radically different biblical positions while using the exact same proof texts and reasoning to get there? Each group introduces their own form of reading errors into the biblical record.
The scientific community bases their methods off of established rules that allow them to interpret reality as it can be demonstrated across a wide group of people. Similarly, one needs to use sound and established principles to interpret literary texts, so as not to introduce errors by misreading a text.
In the book, “Twisting Scripture,” James Sire, documents the many ways groups twist, misrepresent or slant a religious text to make it say what they want. He presents a comprehensive list of of 20 ways to twist scripture, altering its original meaning to something very different.
From my experience in Armstrongism, I found the following 4 to be most applicable to my situation. I left the author’s original numbers intact, to sync up with the overall list more easily.
Twisting Scriptures
5. “Collapsing Contexts” - When two or more passages, which have little or nothing to do with each other, are read together as if they were commenting on the same topic.
A hallmark example from the Worldwide Church of God is their use of Isaiah 28:9-13, which they claimed gave them license to freely collapse contexts throughout the Bible. When preaching, I often used this passage to show that verses from the Old and New Testament needed to be “added together” to get their full meaning. (While this is a larger subject, they often cited Old Testament verses to prove how the Law of Moses was still binding on Christians.) The claim was that the Bible was written “here a little” and “there a little,” so verses had to be collected from disparate places, then placed together to get a “full understanding.” Additionally, Armstrong claimed the Bible was a jigsaw puzzle that he had to assemble, in order to get it’s full meaning. The typical method of Bible study for members was to pair the church’s literature with the Bible, so you could most correctly understand “the Truth.”
In effect, the literature was essentially just a guideline on which contexts needed to be collapsed together to construct their teachings. According to the JFB and Matthew Henry commentaries, Isaiah 28:9-13 is actually an accusation against the Israelites who had no capacity to learn what was being taught to them. Those verses never gave license to cram verses together stripped of their context.
Ironically the passage in Isaiah was a damning accusation against leaders who didn’t understand their own scriptures.
6. “Overspecification” - When a more detailed or specific conclusion is added to the meanings of a particular passage.
One example is Matthew 25:1-10. This parable recounts the story of the 10 virgins who slumbered and slept when the bridegroom came. Some had oil in their lamps and others did not. The clear lesson from the story is that Chrsitans should be prepared for Christ’s return anytime during our lives. Even though the lesson is quite obvious, the splinter groups from Armstrongism insert their own presuppositions to it. In RCG, we taught each of the groups of virgins (those with oil in their lamps, those who had no oil and others who entered the chamber) were actually specific church “eras” or groups of people in the Church prophetically. The group who was “ready,” was only a small contingent in RCG, while those who had to buy oil, were the “Laodiceans,” or members in other COG groups and those who had no oil, were the largest group of “unworthy” from among all COG’s.
While a nod is given to the original meaning, the additional presupposition was always emphasized, even though it wasn’t in the text. The simple meaning of the parable was eclipsed by the extra-biblical prophetic interpretation.
“Many destructive groups, not just Armstrongism, pervert the Bible for their own means. “Twisting Scripture” provides context on ways that they twist biblical texts to justify their own teachings. ”
14. “Ignoring Alternate Explanations” - When a more complicated interpretation of a biblical text is favored over a much simpler and more obvious explanation.
The Armstrongists’ interpretation of Genesis 22:17 is an excellent example of this. Genesis 22:17 is often used by Anglo-Israelites to claim that the blessings given to Abraham would only be later fulfilled when great providence was given to the American and British peoples in our modern age. Additionally, they claim that “holding the gates of one’s” enemies is a reference to the British peoples becoming a great naval power and conquering strategic seaports. While that may sound convincing, it creates another Biblical problem. The reader has to ignore Deuteronomy 1:10. This Old Testament exhortation by Moses clearly demonstrates that ancient Israel fulfilled this prophecy before they crossed the Jordan and took the promised land.
In order to get around this, the unbiblical prophetic principle of “duality” is invoked. They claim it was actually fulfilled anciently, then again would be by the British peoples. “Duality” in this manner, is an extra-biblical idea which is invoked only when necessary and in different subjective ways. If we are to claim our truths come from the Bible, then it needs to be found there, not outside of it.
Another line of Armstrongist argument for their interpretation of Genesis 22:17 is that “there is no way the wandering Israelite tribes could have fulfilled this prophecy, since they weren’t “great,” however this also is in direct opposition to a great many verses demonstrating they did indeed fulfill it at that time (Deuteronomy 1:10, 10:22, 28:62, Exodus 32:13, Nehemiah 9:23).
If a complicated and curious explanation is given to a difficult verse, look for the most obvious and Biblically sound explanation, as that is likely the answer.
18. Supplementing Biblical Authority - New revelations and interpretations from post biblical prophets either replace or supplement the Bible’s message. This is usually cloaked as learning “New Truth.”
In Herbert Armstrong’s teachings, he claimed he was the “Elijah” who would come to restore all things. At the time of his death, he taught the world believed a false gospel for 1,900 years. He alone had been given special revelation from God to reassemble the “jigsaw puzzle” of prophecy and to begin preaching the “True Gospel” to the world. Herbert alone was “God’s True Servant” and all others were satanic counterfeits.
While it was a bold claim, the particular claim was actually quite common among groups over the last 200 years. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, Charles Taze Russel with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the World Mission Society Church of God (a South Korean Adventist split) make the exact same claims about their post-Biblical prophets. This claim seems to be the easiest way to circumvent the cumulative 2,000 years of Christian theology that most need to distance themselves from when creating their own groups.
Herbert, by setting himself up as God’s prophet, made his words essentially equal to that of the Bible. Using a misapplied “binding and loosing” principles, he could then bring his own message to supplant orthodox theology. His initial revelations, (when he was still a member of the Church of God Seventh Day) included British-Israelism and the mandatory keeping of the Jewish Feast Days. Both of which were rejected by his former organization. However, he didn’t stop here, ultimately his revelations were best summarized in his “18 restored truths.” Unfortunately, most of these were not revelations by God as he stated, but in fact cultic theology that preceded him by hundreds of years. More on this later.
Colossians 1:26, specifically shows that the “mystery” of the riches of Christ were made manifest to all his saints, including the gentiles. Jesus Himself came to teach all men and commanded his disciples to do likewise. The apostle Paul worked mightily to teach all men about Christianity. There is simply no Biblical evidence that Jesus would come secretly to reveal “hidden” or “restored” knowledge to one man.
For a more thorough examination of this, I cover it here.
Warnings Against Twisting Scripture
The Bible holds false prophets, false teachers and false leaders accountable for their claims and it is taken quite seriously. 2 Peter 2:1, I John 4:1, John 10:12, Ephesians 4:14, along with many other verses provide warnings for Christians. II Peter 2:3 makes it the most clear: “They will exploit you in their greed with made-up stories. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep.”
Many destructive groups, not just Armstrongism, pervert the Bible for their own means. “Twisting Scripture” provides context on ways that they twist biblical texts to justify their own teachings. Reviewing the rules surrounding these points, you will never blindly accept claims by religious leaders again.