How Readest Thou? by Alonzo Trevier Jones

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 15, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 39.

How Readest Thou?

By Alonzo Trevier Jones

SOME one, presumably its editor, has sent us a number of papers bearing the title, The Spirit of the Word, and in the first number we have an explanation of the title, as follows:—

“By the Spirit of the word I mean its real and intended meaning, in contradistinction to its apparent and surface meaning, or the ‘letter.’ It is a common mistake among Christians to suppose the Bible is written in very plain and simple language, and that the correct meaning is that which lies upon the surface—the most obvious and apparent sense. If I err not, the truth is just the opposite of this. The Bible often means something very different from what it says. . . . It may sound strange and erroneous, to some, to hear any one say that the Bible does not mean what it says. But if you will read this paper month after month, I think I can show you that I do not make the statement unwarrantably.”

From what we have read of the paper, we think the last statement to be correct. We believe that the person who should read that paper “month after month” would not only believe that the Bible does not mean what it says, but would also believe that there is nothing that means what it says.

But we can prove, by sound logic, and upon his own principles, that the Bible does mean what it says. See: He says that the Bible means “just the opposite” of what it says. So he must mean “just the opposite” of what he says. Therefore, by his own principles, the Bible means just what it says. Because when he says that the Bible means just the opposite of what it says, he means just the opposite of what he says; and the opposite of what he says is, that the Bible means just what it says.

We suppose, however, that this editor will hardly admit our deduction; yet we cannot see how he can reasonably object to it, for surely we have just as much right to hold that his words mean the opposite of what they say, as he has to say that the Bible means just the opposite of what it says. And if he, or any other, objects, then we should like him to explain to us by what right it is that he applies to the word of God a false rule that may not be applied to his own words.

But this person is not the only one who holds to this system of interpreting the word of God. True, all such do not state the case so boldly, but they act firmly upon the principles which this writer has plainly stated. When the Lord says, “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Eze. 18:4), he is made to mean that it shall live to all eternity. When the Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Ex. 20:10), he is made to mean that that is the Jewish Sabbath; that it is the first day of the week; that it is the seventh part of time, etc., etc., in fact he is made to mean just anything at all but what he says. When the Lord says, “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23), he is made to mean that eternal life is the common lot of all men. When the Lord says, “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12), he is made to mean that every man has life whether he has the Son of God or not.

This is nowadays the prevalent mode of reading the word of God. It is read in the reverse of what it really says, and so every man is left “to do that which is right in his own eyes.” The Saviour once asked a lawyer these two questions: “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” Luke 10:26. These questions are as appropriate to-day as they were the day they were first uttered. “What is written in the word? how readest thou?” If the Lord wanted to tell the people of this world that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, how would it be possible for him to do it more plainly than he has done it? If he wanted to tell the people that the soul that sinneth it shall die, how could he do it in any other words than those in which he has told them? If he wanted to tell men that his own

gift to men is eternal life through Jesus Christ; and that those who have Christ have life, and those who have not Christ have not life; how would it be possible for him to tell them that in words more plain than those in which he has told just that thing?

“How readest thou?” Do you read the word as it is, or do you read it the reverse of what it is? And if you read it, and seek to obey it, in the reverse of what it says, why should not the Lord reward you in the reverse of the hopes which you build upon your reverse reading? “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” A. T. J.