William Branham did not formally progress beyond a grade school education. His knowledge of the Bible is based on his study of the King James Version of the Bible (KJV--often the Schofield edition) and a host of other books written by Christian and non-Christian authors. He had no training in Greek or Hebrew. When he referred to the original Greek he usually sourced the Emphatic Diaglott published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). * Many of WMB’s questionable doctrines were a result of his deficient understanding of the KJV's English. His interpretations of the Scriptures were often based without consideration of obsolete syntax, grammar and definitions of the King James English, or the original languages from which the KJV was derived. In his study of a given passage of Scripture, WMB would read a meaning into the text a meaning which supported one of his preconceived "revelations" (eisegesis) rather than studying the verse to understand what it really means (exegesis).** On this page we will examine a few scriptures which WMB misused to define some of his more well-known teachings.
Each of the following passages have been misinterpreted and misapplied by WMB to define a particular "revelation" he was trying to teach his followers. It's important to remember that one of the signs of a false prophet is not only that he would prophecy events which didn't come to pass as predicted, but that he would teach things as coming from the Lord which God did not tell him to say:
"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."
Pray that those who follow WMB's Message will recognize that WMB interpreted the Bible to fit his teachings, and that his Message does not conform to what the Bible really says. Pray that they will repent of following a false prophet and that they will put their faith in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ!
(Deuteronomy 18:20)
_____________________________
* "The Witnesses also have two Greek interliner New Testament texts. The older work is The Emphatic Diaglott, translated by Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian with no credentials in Greek. The other is The Kingdom Interliner Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published in 1969, combines the Westcott and Hort Greek text with the Society' translation and an improved text of the New World Translation. Both works clearly reveal a doctrinal bias." ** For more on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, see, What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?
From the Watchman Fellowship, Inc.
http://www.serve.com/larryi/jwpbt.htm
_____________________________
Malachi 4:5,6
Matthew 3:17
Matthew 24:28
Acts 19:2 & Ephesians 1:13
Romans 11:29
I Corinthians 13:1, 2
Revelation 3:14
Revelation 6:8
Revelation 10:7
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
(Malachi 4:5,6)
The book of Malachi begins with the words, "The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi."
This book is one of exhortations and warnings to the people of Israel, not to the Gentiles. It is not possible to read this book in its entirety and in its proper context and conclude that Malachi 4:5,6 is a promise to the Gentiles to the exclusion of Israel. Verse after verse, chapter after chapter, this book speaks only of the practices, traditions and sins of the people of Israel. The only place in the book that has anything to do with the Gentiles is when God said to Israel,
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."What a rebuke to those who God chose to be His people! The end of the book had not changed its tone towards Israel:
(Malachi 1:11)
"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the statutes and judgments.
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
(Malachi 4:4-6)
These verses were clearly written to the people of Israel, not to Gentiles. We Gentiles (and Jews) who have accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ are no longer under the law of Moses with its statutes and judgments. The context of Malachi 4:5,6 is clearly a prophetic warning to Israel and cannot be construed as a warning to the Gentiles, much less to the Church of Jesus Christ.
The Bible not only prophesied of a coming Elijah, but we read in the New Testament who fulfilled this prophecy. Speaking of John the Baptist, Luke 1:16-17 says,
And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:16,17)
Wm. Branham often said that John the Baptist only fulfilled Malachi 3 but not Malachi 4. Please note that Luke 1:17 indentifies John the Baptist with both Malachi 3:1 and Malachi 4:6:
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just [Malachi 4:5,6]; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord [Malachi 3:1]. (Luke 1:17)
Malachi 4:6 does not say that Elijah shall turn many of the "children of Israel" to the Lord their God or "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just" in those precise words. In my opinion, these two verses paraphrase Malachi 4:5,6 which John the Baptist fulfilled completely.
There is a parallel passage to Matthew 17 that is found in Mark 9:11-13:
And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
Please note that Jesus connects Elijah's restoration to the suffering of the Son of man. It is clear to me that Jesus affirmed that Elijah comes first to prepare a people for the Lord's coming (restoration of a correct relationship between God and mankind) and that in the process of this restoration, the Son of man must suffer and be rejected. This was fulfilled in John the Baptist as Jesus said in Matthew 17:12 and Mark 9:13.
Note that in the following passage, Jesus identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment of both Malachi 3 and Malachi 4:What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet?Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written,Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come [that is, Malachi 4]. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 11:7-15)“‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’[that is, Malachi 3]
Some say, "But John the Baptist denied being Elijah in John 1:21!" If John the Baptist was not Elijah, then Jesus was in error when He said he was (Matthew 11:13-14; 17:12-13; Mark 9:13). When we read a passage of Scripture that seems unclear, we need to interpret it in light of what is clear. Jesus obviously wasn't wrong when He said that John was Elijah, so what did John mean when he denied that he was Elijah? Surely, John could not have been in doubt of his ministry when we read the account of his birth in Luke, chapter 1. His reference to Malachi 3 is clear indication that he knew who he was. The only obvious reason for John's denial that he was Elijah was to make clear to those around him that he was not literally the Elijah who had not died, as many Jews expected.
I believe the Bible is clear that John the Baptist was the Elijah which Malachi 4:5,6 spoke of. He was the last prophet to Israel. His ministry of preparing the way for the Messiah indeed preceded the great and dreadful day of the Lord as he also warned of God's coming wrath (see Matthew 3:7-12). The Messiah came in the person of Jesus Christ but Israel rejected Him. History records the great and dreadful day of the Lord when, in 70 A.D., Jerusalem and the temple was sacked by the Romans and destroyed by fire, and the Jewish people once again saw their beloved homeland taken over by Gentiles. This is precisely what Malachi 4:1-6 predicted. It would be in error and grossly out of context to say this prophecy predicts the coming of a Gentile Elijah to a predominately Gentile Church.
(September 1, 2001)
Matthew 3:17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:16-17
One of Mr. Branham's controversial teachings was that Jesus was not God but a man who God created to dwell in. Mr. Branham used Matthew 3:17 to support his view. He said:
"And when Jesus, a carpenter's Son, physically speaking, when He come to the earth here that's all He was known of, and the day that when John baptized Him, God a vindicated Him. God spoke from the heavens. John saw Him coming in the form a dove, and said, 'This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell.' The right translation there is, 'In whom I am pleased to dwell in.' Jesus immediately anointed with God, He was just a man till that time, but now He becomes the God-man.'"also;
Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever, preached in Campbellsville, KY, 1955 (tape #55-0806J)
"Now, in there it says, "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." You see? Now, that's wrote in the actual form of the Greek, putting verb before adverb; but you notice here, it'd actually be this... Now, just take the Word. See? The Bible says, in the translation of St. James here: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell." But actually, if we'd say it like we'd say it today: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in." You'd turn it around. See, see? "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell." See? Now, we'd say it today: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in," (See?) same word just turns it around. See?"
"Questions and Answers on the Seals," Revelation of the Seven Seals, 1963 (tape #63-0324M)
Does Matthew 3:17 really say that? I asked a friend of mine who is well educated in Greek about Mr. Branham's interpretation of this verse and he told me, "I will translate it for you literally from Greek to English: 'and lo, a voice out of the heavens saying, this is my Son, the beloved, in whom I found delight.' Note that the word 'dwell' does not occur anywhere in the verse. There is no Greek construction that would in any way justify his translation. As with verse 16 as well, he's making up words and constructions found nowhere in the original Greek text. My analysis is that he knew no Greek and was making his own 'interpretative translation' right out of the King James Bible."
Just one more reason why we know William Branham could not have been a prophet with "The Message of the Hour."
What is the carcass? The carcass is what the eagles feed on. Now, a eagle is considered in the Bible, a prophet. A prophet is the eagle. God--God calls Himself a eagle, and we're "eaglets" then, the--the believers. You see? And what is the carcass that they feed on? Is the Word. Wherever the Word is, the true nature of the bird will show itself. See? A eagle, which wants fresh meat, he must have his fresh meat.--William Branham
"Questions and Answers #1," Conduct, Order and Doctrine #2, 1964 (tape #64-0823M)
What is the carcass? The Word. He is the Word, the Carcass, Christ, Christ in you, the same yesterday, today, and forever.--William Branham
The Seed is not Heir with the Shuck, vol. 6, no. 4R, 1965 (tape #65-0218)
Where the Carcass is (the Manna is, the Word is), there the eagles will be gathered.--William Branham
The Anointed Ones at the End Time, vol. 5, no. 3A, 1965 (tape #65-0725M)
William Branham's interpretation of this verse has often bothered me, even while I followed the Message. Mr. Branham taught that the carcass was Christ and the eagles were the Elect. Here is where I believe problems arise with Mr. Branham’s interpretation:
Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
In my opinion, the context of this passage suggests that where there are false christs and false prophets who spread their dead messages, those who feed on such shall be gathered around them. I believe that the contrast between a carcass, which is a dead body, and the Bread of Life, which is Christ, is evidence of this interpretation of Matthew 24:28.
"In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. . . "
Ephesians 1:13
William Branham believed that a person could accept Jesus Christ as his Savior, become saved, yet not receive the Holy Spirit for an indefinite period of time. One Scripture he used to support his view is Acts 19:2. He said in the Church Ages book:
Paul asked, "Have you received SINCE, NOT WHEN you believed." And there is a great difference there, for it is AFTER we believe that we receive. Ephesians 1:13 is an exact word repeat of what happened in Ephesus according to Acts 19, "In Whom ye also trusted, AFTER that ye heard the Word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation; in Whom also AFTER that ye believed (not when ye believed), ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. . . The exact and literal translation is: "Did ye, having previously believed, receive the Holy Ghost?"
"The Smyrnaean Church Age," An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, (n.d.)
Mr. Branham's interpretation of this passage is in error due to his lack of knowledge of the ancient Greek (in this case, he referred to the dubious Emphatic Diaglott for his source of the original Greek). The exact and literal translation of Acts 19:2 actually is not as it appears in his book, but is, "and said to them: if Spirit Holy ye received believing?" In the original Greek, the verbs "received" and "believing" are in the aorist tense, which means the correct modern English translation should be, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" as it is translated in the New King James Version and others.
Ephesians 1:13 is also in the aorist tense and accurately reads in the New King James Version (and others): "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise."
It is important that we not rely on our layman's interpretation of the archaic English in the KJV for understanding biblical doctrine. The Old King James Version is an outdated translation that often uses different rules and word meanings than modern English. What modern English speaking people think they are reading in the Old King James Version may be vastly different than what those who lived in 1611 AD understood when they read it. What must not be ignored is how the passages were written in the original Greek, using the rules of the Greek language and understanding the context of the passage in which it appears. English has changed through the years, the original Greek has not.
William Branham often told that his gift of visions and prophecy was with him since he was a young child even before he became a Christian. Throughout his ministry he justified this by referring to Romans 11:29:
"And now, it's all seen by vision. Everything is by vision. When I see what you've done in life, I just see--just see it. But it's like I'm looking at you now. And it's been that way in a measure since I was a little boy. Therefore, I believe that gifts and callings are without repentance, that you're borned in this world with gifts. . .
So therefore, it wasn't my righteousness, my family's goodness; it was the grace of God that brought the gift down to the people. See? And it just happened to be that God chose it for that purpose."
Ministry Explained, preached in Minneapolis, MN, 1950 (tape #50-0711)"Now, I think there's where our Latter Rain brethren got mixed up. See, they lay hands upon one another, and make them prophets and so forth. Now, that isn't Scriptural. Gifts and callings are without repentance. You are born whatever you are. You are at the beginning what you are."
"The Voice of the Sign," vol. 23, no. 5, 1964 (tape #64-0321E)
Although I am not prepared to say that God does not give certain gifts to those who have not yet repented and become saved, Mr. Branham's use of Romans 11:29 to support this is in error. This is yet another example of Mr. Branham's misunderstanding of the King James Version of the Bible.
A more modern translation of this passage reveals that the point of this passage is that God does not take back His promised gifts and calls (i.e., they are without God's repentance, not man's). Here is the passage as read in the New International Version:
"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.' As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."A prophet entrusted with receiving revelations of the secret mysteries of the Bible would have had a better understanding of the Scriptures than Mr. Branham has demonstrated.
Romans 11:26-29
William Branham said:
Now remember, that can be a genuine gift; that could be the Holy Ghost speaking in you with unknown tongues, and you'd be lost and go to hell. The Bible said so. You believe that? Would you like to have Scripture on it? You want Scripture; raise your hand. "Though I speak with tongues as men and angels (is that right? Both the one that can be interpreted and that cannot be interpreted, genuine Holy Ghost tongues), I am nothing." See, unless that other goes with it. You can have this (See?), so don't reach after that without this. Get this first, and then that'll actually follow it.
Questions and Answers #3, August 30, 1964 (tape #64-0830M)
In this passage, Paul is by no means making the point that it is possible to have genuine spiritual gifts and still be lost and go to hell as William Branham stated. Paul uses hyperbole to say that love is the most important gift, central to the Christian faith. After all, God is Love. The point is not that one can have a spiritual gift without being saved--it is that without love, all other gifts are meaningless and insufficient in producing an effectual Christian life.
William Branham believed that Jesus was only a man who was created for the purpose of providing a body of flesh for God to dwell in. He did not believe Jesus became God until the time of His baptism when John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend on Him like a dove. One Scripture that Mr. Branham used to support his belief that Jesus was created, not eternal, is Revelation 3:14. He said:
Now, to show that He was the "First" also, as He was, He's the beginning of the creation of God. Oh, do you catch it? See? How could God be created that He's a Spirit? How could He be? He's--He is eternal. He never was created; He never will be created, because He was God at the beginning. But He that is the beginning of the creation of God was Jesus Christ when He was made manifest, when God lived in Him. He is God's creation. Oh, my. See? "The First and the Last, the Amen, the beginning of the creation of God." When God created Himself a body, He come down and lived in it, that's the beginning of the creation of God. See? Oh, isn't He wonderful?But Mr. Branham's interpretation of Revelation 3:14 is flawed. Clarke's Commentary says of this verse, "The beginning of the creation of God. That is, the head and governor of all creatures: the king of the creation."
"The Laodicean Church Age," The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 1960 (tape #60-1211E)
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible says, "The beginning of the creation of God; not the first creature that God made, but the first cause of the creation; the first Parent, producer, and efficient cause of every creature; the author of the old creation, who made all things out of nothing in the beginning of time; and of the new creation, the everlasting Father of, everyone that is made a new creature; the Father of the world to come, or of the new age and Gospel dispensation; the Maker of the new heaven and new earth; and so a very fit person to be the Judge of the whole world, to summon all nations before him, and pass the final sentence on them. The phrase is Jewish, and it is a title the Jews give to Metatron, by whom they sometimes mean the Messiah. . ."
Here are several more modern translations that reflect the true meaning of Revelation 3:14:
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. (NIV)And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God; (Young’s Literal Translation)
And to the angel {messenger) of the assembly (the church) in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness the Origin and Beginning and Author of God’s Creation. (The Amplified Bible)
Revelation 3:14--indeed the Bible--does not teach that Jesus Christ was merely a creation of God. Jesus was and is God and was made flesh and dwelt among us, as John chapter 1 says.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 4:12
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
In the sermon, The Fourth Seal, an integral part of William Branham’s revelation of the forth horse rider of Revelation 6:8 was the color of his horse. Mr. Branham taught that the horse’s color was pale because it was a mixture of the three previous horses’ colors: white, red and black. Throughout the sermon Mr. Branham reiterated over and over again of this most important revelation with statements such as:
Notice, the antichrist was on a pale horse, mixed color. . . This one mixes its colors of red, white, black. Three colors in one--represented in one, and three powers represented in one: a white horse, a black horse, red horse, and three crowns in one.
"The Fourth Seal," Revelation of the Seven Seals, 1963 (tape #63-0321)The first one was white, and then the next one was red, and the next one was black, and the fourth one... All of these other three was represented in it, because pale is red and--and white and so mixed together. See? He... It's--it's all mixed in this one horse. See? And there he become four, or actually the three in one, and it was all mixed up in that one thing.
"The Fourth Seal," Revelation of the Seven Seals, 1963 (tape #63-0321)
Mr. Branham’s revelation of the fourth horse rider was wrong. The Greek word translated as pale in Revelation 6:8 is chloros, which is more properly described as a greenish-yellow. Chloros is used in two other verses in Revelation, and in each one it is translated as green:
The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green [chloros] grass was burnt up.
(Revelation 8:7)And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green [chloros] thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
(Revelation 9:4)
Mr. Branham said many times that his revelation of the Seven Seals was "thus saith the Lord." It is painfully obvious that Mr. Branham’s revelation was not from the Lord since the colors white, red and black, when mixed together, produce a reddish brown, not the color green. The Bible does not does not say, nor can it say that the fourth horse rider is pale because of the mixture of the previous three horses’ colors.
William Branham's teaching of Revelation 10:7 is one of his errors in biblical interpretation. When we read the book of Revelation in context, particularly chapters 8-11, we see that Revelation 10:7 speaks of the 7th trumpet angel and has nothing to do with the seventh church angel:
"But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound (the word for sound in Greek is salpizo, meaning "to sound a trumpet"), the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets"
(Revelation 10:7)
If one were inclined to believe that the 7 trumpets were to Israel as William Branham taught, then Revelation 10:7 is not a promise to the Church, but to the Jews. We can make three assertions based on William Branham's teachings:
All three statements cannot be true. Therefore we know that Mr. Branham's interpretation of Revelation 10:7 is false.