Rightly Dividing the Word

The night I became a Christian at age 12, I was given the Gospel of John, to read in a week.

Next I decided to read from the Epistles through to Revelation - and decided to add Acts on at the start - because I thought, and somehow knew, that it is the Epistles which contain material which applies almost entirely unequivocally for us as Christians. And most of Acts is a direct example for us too.

By the time I finished doing that, I somehow felt that in order to apply the Book of Revelation properly, it would help if I first understood the rest of the Bible properly. So I set myself on a quest to do that, and went to the Book of Genesis, and started reading the whole Bible through in order.

That was all a pretty good strategy, I think. Sometimes the born-again spirit of a new Christian knows things, before any man has advised him.

The first time I read the Bible through, I read all of the Old Testament as types of New Covenant truth. All of it. That was appropriate for my first reading seeing I was a New Christian, and the Holy Spirit wanted me to enjoy my newfound life in Jesus.

But on the second or third reading of the Old Testament, I started to read it as history as well. And that's also important, because our Christian faith is based on the historical fulfilment of Bible Prophecy, not only on spiritual or ethereal experiences.

I can remember one day I prayed to understand the Prophets the way the Lord intended.

Paul said if any man thinks he knows anything, he doesn't know anything yet as he ought to know it. So I don't think I know any thing yet.

But I can say I understand it sufficiently to assert that modern Judaism is not necessary - not for us, not for anyone, not now, not ever.

And I can certainly assert that Jesus of Nazareth is the Saviour - not only based on my spiritual experience, but based also on the fulfilment in history, on time, on location in Israel, of Bible-Prophecies concerning Israel.

Paul talked about rightly dividing - rightly navigating through - the Scriptures. That means there's a wrong way to do it too!

There's a right and wrong way to use Moses' Scriptures today. And Samuel. And the Psalms. And the Prophets. Same for some things in some of the Gospels. And some things early in Acts. There's a wrong and a right way to apply those parts of Scripture. As for the Epistles, they mostly apply to us unequivocally. Mostly.

But what about Revelation? Although I'm not quite as sure of this, I still say it may be valid to think of the Book of Revelation as illustrative of things already taught in the writings of the Apostles - to make Revelation fit into the framework of doctrine already established by the Bible (as explained in the Epistles, as reported in the Gospels and of course as it began to be unfolded in the Old Testament). Rather than seeing the Book of Revelation as adding components of theology not already established elsewhere in the Bible; and leaving it open to post-Biblical interpretation rather than understanding it in terms of the Biblical, authoritative presentation of God's story.

So the writings of the Apostles are the hinge-pin by which we can correctly understand the Old Testament (and the Gospels) - but it may also be the hinge-pin by which we can correctly understand the Book of Revelation.

That's because the Apostles learned their doctrine from Jesus Christ. He expounded the Scriptures to them and spoke to them of things concerning the Kingdom of God. Then they wrote it for us. But we don't have their commentary on Revelation. But we know its meaning has to fit with what they wrote, because their writings repeated what Jesus taught.

And that includes Paul's writings - because the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem endorsed Paul's ministry and doctrine.

But we don't have the same certainty that the Apostles endorsed the so-called Apostolic Fathers or Church Fathers. Therefore we are better to make Revelation fit the Apostles' doctrine, than to rely on post-Biblical, second-century commentaries on it.