A few recent discussions have made me think about the importance of how I read my Bible. What I mean by that is that we all have a particular lens when we read each page of God’s inspired Word - so I want to talk about my lens and how that flows through to my interpretation of key verses and by extension, how it impacts my overall worldview. This blog has ended up becoming a bit of a public journal for me - it’s a place where I write about things that help me to understand them better and in doing so publicly, readers can see how I think about things and let that impact their own thinking. I don’t write to be an authority, and anyone reading my words thinking as such needs to remember that the only authority on Heaven and Earth is the LORD, but given my words can have impact I want people to understand the context which defines my words.
Anyone who has followed my story knows I’ve gone on quite a journey with my faith - first seeking answers to give my earthly existence some meaning, then digging into the Word but being led by various teachers and commentaries, but more recently fully submitting to the Will of the Father and trusting the in Spirit alone to teach me (Joh. 14:26). The second part of that journey led me, often unknowingly, into holding various ‘ist’ positions - by ists I mean all of the various sub-groups within the body of Christ. Cessationist vs continuist, dispensationist vs covenantist, pre-milennialst vs post-milennialist, calvinist vs arminianist etc. The problem with all of these ists is that when ones worldview is centred around that position, they can be led from the only position that we are truly called to be - in Chr‘ist’. For example, if I identify as a pre-milennialist who believes in a mid-tribulation rapture then I am going to overlay that lens into all of Scripture and as a result make verses ‘work’ for that worldview. I need Daniel 9:27 to refer to the Antichrist, because that verse is the foundation of my 7 year end time period and a physical antichrist making a covenant with Israel. When I believe this and start watching content on it, I am going to be fed more and more content that confirms my position and usually this is going to be at the expense of my reading the Scriptures directly and letting the Spirit show me Truth. As fallen humans, we are drawn to commentaries and Bible teachers as they can give us shortcuts to understand the Word, but in doing this (which is against the teachings of the Word itself) we allow ourselves to be influenced by men rather than the Spirit. I had this realisation several months ago and it’s totally changed my walk with God - I stopped seeking teachers of the Word and trusted in God alone to show me Truth and as a result I have begun seeing the Bible in a whole new light. What we might consider to be difficult verses or books have started to jump off the page at me with a clarity that I never had when I thought I needed the wisdom of others to understand them.
I want to explain this lens that I am currently seeing the Word with. I also want readers to realise that the lens may very well be wrong in certain places - which means that I am going to interpret some verses incorrectly and in time, through more prayer and submission to the Father, my understanding may very well change. If I believe that today I understand all of God’s Word perfectly, then I am not only falling into the dangerous trap of pride but I am also establishing a position that will make me stiffnecked when it comes to receiving new revelation from the Lord. For example, if I believe that without any doubt there is a 7 year end time period with a mid point rapture, then I risk getting defensive rather than open if a deeper understanding of Scripture elsewhere makes this worldview untenable. As such, whilst I have strong positions on many key topics of Scripture, I am very open to the Spirit leading me to new revelation that is going to change some of those positions.
The first position I want to speak about is how I see the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible (Tenach). It goes without saying that the OT is a difficult text - many of the books can send us into a spin, and the character of God at times appears totally opposed to His character as defined in the New Testament. I mean read Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and you have a God who instructs us that a disobedient child should be put to death. Or Deuteronomy 23:2 that prohibits the 10th generation of a bastard from entering His congregation. Compare this with God’s feelings for us described by Luke when he tells us that even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows (Luke. 12:7) and many Christians prefer to think that they never saw the Deuteronomy verses (and to be honest most probably haven’t). But if we’re a Truth seeking follower of the Lord then we simply can’t do that.
Here’s how I think about the OT. Most importantly, I don’t see the OT and NT as two different books describing two different characters of God. I think the OT tells us the story of our creation and redemption, with the Christ as the central character of the entire book. The years of Jesus’ ministry was the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, in other words He came to fulfil all that was written about Him, and the NT tells us the story of that period. Both books are narratives of actual historical events and the events themselves were the revelation from God, the text just provides a means for God to relay those events to subsequent generations. The OT starts with the Pentateuch, Moses's five books otherwise known as the Torah. Ask an Orthodox Jew and they'll call it the Law, but if God intended for it to be seen as a lawbook He would have started at Exodus 20. He didn't. He started at Genesis and told us about our story of creation and all the events leading up to and away from the giving of the Law at Sinai. In fact the moment the Law was given, we are told that when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off (Ex. 20: 18) and they told Moses let not God speak with us, lest we die (Ex. 20:19). Not long after, the people complained to Aaron asking to make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him (Ex. 32:1). To call the Torah a lawbook is to say that we’re given a set of laws within a broader narrative that shows our total inability to keep that law - good luck! No one argues how to understand the Torah better than Steven (Acts 7:1-53) - the Torah is a narrative of our fallen nature and total dependence on a Redeemer to restore us to our Creator. We learn about sin in Genesis 3, and in the same chapter God promises to put enmity between thy seed and her seed (Gen. 3:15) - our first promise of a Redeemer. Throughout the Torah, we are introduced to various Christ like figures to prepare the people for His ultimate coming - Abel, Melchizedek, Jacob’s ladder, Joseph, Moses, the Passover Lamb, Joshua as just a few examples. The central character of the Torah is Christ, therefore ‘to keep Torah’ is to believe on his name of the One who was sent so that we can be restored and be given power to become the sons of God (Joh. 1.12). The Torah teaches us about the origins of our creation, our fallen nature as humans, God’s extreme hatred for sin and disobedience (hence those Deuteronomy verses from earlier) and His plan to redeem us. As a believer in Christ, I see no reason to fall into the Hebrew roots trap of reading the Torah as an expanded set of laws for us - we enter into His rest (Heb. 4) and become dead to the law by the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4).
The Torah is the cornerstone book of the Bible and Christ is the cornerstone of the Torah - as such the writings and the prophets simply expand on the Torah. Every prophet, every king, every judge, every conquest - all of their stories were a part of God’s larger plan to bring in the Messiah and free the world from the bondage of sin. That plan was completed with the crucifixion and resurrection, so with that lens I read every page of the OT and see Jesus. I don't see how we can read Kings or Judges and see them as historical books about how God ‘tried’ to establish and manage Israel, but rather I believe it shows us a narrative of how God enabled man to see the failures of every manmade system so that they could realise the need for Him and His Anointed. I also think it's important to realise that the Anointed needed to arrive at a certain time and do certain things - most of these only possible if God had a chosen people group who would recognise Him. If Israel had been allowed to perish, then what lineage would the Messiah have come through and who would have held the Scriptures that spoke of Him? All of the battles and warfare we see through the OT were to ensure that Israel as a place and people group actually existed when Daniel's 70th seven would occur.
This lens helps to make sense of all the verses like Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Is this command still relevant to us as believers today? No, because we're not instructed to engage in war. Was is relevant and important at the time the Law was given? Yes, because the Law needed to preserve male warriors so that Israel could advance as a nation. Does this show God as being contradictory? No, as each verse through the Bible needs to be read according to its part in God’s overall plan that centred around the Messiah. As a Christian, we arguably don’t need to know much more than a handful of verses - Romans 10:9-10 pretty much tells us all that we need to do - and yet we have just short of a million other words that we need to decide what we are going to do with. For me, all of those other words help us to understand the story of our Christ and the character of our Creator, with each one bringing us closer to Him.
This leads us to the New Testament and I have a feeling I am going to challenge or even offend a few brethren with what I say here. Firstly, I believe that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled (Joh. 19:28) and therefore God’s plan was finished (Joh. 19:30) at the cross. As such, we entered into the last days which have been spoken of by the Prophets at that time and remain in them today. I disagree with the common notion that ‘God will intervene’ or that God’s plan still has more to play out - I’m not sure the Scripture could be more clear that it is finished and any idea that more needs to be done undermines the work of Christ. What He did on the cross was done so that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (Joh. 3:16) and that’s it - we can believe in Him and follow Him into God’s eternal Kingdom, or we can reject Him. For those of us who have followed Him, who are you, O man, to answer back to God and seek things in this fallen world? Our eyes should be on the Kingdom, and the Kingdom only. Our role in this fallen world is to proclaim the Gospels and to expect and accept all of the persecution that comes with that (2Tim 3:12, Joh. 15:18, Mat. 5:10).
I want to talk more about how I believe the NT shows us God’s Will for our own lives and how we are called to follow Him, but to do that I need to show how I feel we need to look at the text in context. Ultimately the NT may be broken into four parts - the Gospels which give us the narrative of Jesus’s ministry, Acts which gives us a narrative on the events surrounding the establishment of the Church, the Epistles which provide us with context around that establishment, and Revelation which tells us how the old ends and the new begins. Unless we think about these four parts in their very specific context, I think it’s easy to get confused and read things which seem to contradict each other, ultimately causing us to stray from how the LORD intends us to follow Him.
Perhaps we can use an example. How do we square 2 Thessalonians 2:15 with Matthew 15:9 or Mark 7:13? Why would Christ spend so much time during His ministry rebuking the traditions of religious leaders, only to institute a new group of religious leaders with their own sets of traditions? In my opinion, it's because 2 Thessalonians was a letter written by the Apostle Paul ‘to the church of the Thessalonians' (2Thes 1:1) - in other words, it wasn't written by Paul to us as the general body of Christ but rather to a specific Church in Greece in the first century. Does this mean the epistle is not relevant to us? Of course not. But it does mean that we need to read it understanding the context in which it was written. Therefore, I’m now going to explain the context that I believe is foundational for the understanding of the whole NT.
It’s my contention that if we get the role of the Apostles wrong, we misunderstand many crucial parts of the NT. My guess is that a lot of people read the NT without even thinking about a pretty significant question regarding the Apostles - when Christ is speaking to them, should we consider those words to be directed at us too or were they specific for the twelve? For example, is the Great Commission to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mat. 28:19) a command just for the twelve, or is it also a command to believers today? I believe it’s the former. Consider it this way - throughout the three years of Jesus’ ministry we see Him addressing the multitudes, and we also see Him addressing His Disciples directly. At all times the Scriptures makes it known who His words are directed to and the Word never does anything by accident - people have written entire theses about single words in particular verses because any Bible reader knows that every single word has relevance. Therefore, when it says Jesus spoke to the multitudes we should read that as being directed at us, and when it says He spoke to His disciples we should realise it was directed at them. The implications of this in terms of how I read my NT are that I believe we need to understand that the twelve had a very significant role to play - to establish the early Church, spreading the news of what Jesus did and getting the Gospels published.
Furthermore, I think the second part of the Great Commission gives us another clue on how we consider their role that also has significant ramifications for our understanding of other verses. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Mat. 28:20) - the last word being the Greek αἰών which is generally translated to ‘the age’ or ‘the world’ and is a significant word in all end times discussions. It’s the same word as Matthew 24:3 when the disciples came to him privately (important point as per my previous words) asking Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?. My position (its controversial though I’m not sure why given how many verses support it) is that the end of the age speaks of the period of time leading up to the second Temple destruction. The ‘age’ being the Sinai covenant of the Torah, being replaced by the new and everlasting covenant of the Anointed. It makes perfect sense in the context of all of the Scripture - all of the prophets spoke of a time when the Messiah would come and usher in a new age, so why would the coming of that Messiah and the destruction of that which signified the old system (The Temple) not be aptly described as the ‘end of the age’? And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles (Mark 2:22).
Now let’s consider that Matthew 24 passage in context. Jesus had just finished giving the most savage verbal attack of His whole ministry on the serpents, you brood of vipers (Mat. 23:33) that were the Pharisees. Six times he repeats woe to you regarding what will come upon this generation (Mat. 23:36) where their house is left to you desolate (Mat. 23:38), then immediately following as He left the temple His Disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple (Mat. 24:1) and asked the question regarding the end of the age? He foretells them that they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake (Mat. 24:9), then when the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Mat. 24:15) flee to the mountains (Mat. 24:16). Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mat. 24:30). And importantly, truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Mat. 24:34). This scene is confirmed in other Gospels and Luke 21:30 shows us that what is being spoken of is quite clearly the Second Temple destruction that was to come in 70AD - when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Every single time Jesus refers to ‘this generation’ in the NT, He is referring to the people who were alive in His day - so if we are letting the Bible interpret the Bible, why should we change that interpretation here?
Daniel 9:26-27 is a verse that has been corrupted in translations more than any other, and though thats a topic for another time, it is worth looking how it reads in the Septuagint (which was the ‘Scriptures’ that those in the time of Jesus would have read).
And after seven periods of seven and sixty-two periods of seven, an anointed place will be removed, and it will not be. And a kingdom from among the nations will despoil the city and the holy place along with the anointed one, and his end will come with destructive anger until the set time of the consummation. There will be war upon war. And the covenant will be made strong for many, and it will recover again, and it will be built up in breadth and length. And at the end of the appointed times, and after seven periods of seventy appointed times and sixty-two years during the set time of the consummation of war, then the desolation will be taken away when the covenant prevails for many weeks. And at the completion of the period of seven, offering and drink-offering will be taken away, and upon the holy place there will be an abomination of desolation until the end. And a determined final destruction will be rendered upon the one making desolate. (Daniel 9:26–27 LES).
I believe that quite clearly Daniel 9:27 is speaking of the Messiah and the Temple destruction - a prophecy that was fulfilled perfectly to the very day - yet man has tried to corrupt the verse and convince people that it is referencing a future Antichrist figure. We can also read earlier in Daniel about his vision regarding the Son of Man receiving His Kingdom - one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13-14). Notice the coming with the clouds and the similarity to Matthew 24:30? ‘Coming with the clouds’ to the Jewish reader of Scripture in the first century was a commonly understood term that referred to the LORD coming in judgement. Look up Isaiah 19:1, Numbers 16:42, Exodus 16:10, Leviticus 16:2 for just a few examples.
This idea that Christ would come in the clouds and be given His throne in that first century period is very aligned with what the prophets said would happen, and particularly in the Psalms. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool…rule thou in the midst of thine enemies (Ps. 110:1-2). The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed (Ps. 2:2). The Psalms are very clear - Jesus would reign in the midst of the enemies and His Kingdom would be established immediately. This happens in Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:30, and both events are not futuristic but indeed historic. I challenge any reader to show me where in the Scriptures it suggests that Christ would take the throne at the very end (a future date) - I mean even Paul confirms that he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25). So if Christ has been given His throne and is reigning now, as I believe the Scriptures clearly show, then it forces us to look at Revelation quite differently than how most of the modern interpretations show it. I’ll be honest, I don’t yet have a firm position on how we’re to read and understand Revelation, but my conviction as it stands is that we must see it as a prophecy regarding events which would commence immediately (following the time John wrote it in the first century) and continue until the final Day of the Lord. I believe that most of Revelation, but not all, has been fulfilled. I want to see with my own eyes what happens with the current iteration of Mystery Babylon to connect that with the Scriptures and establish a position on where in the timeline we sit, but if I had to make a call based on current information I actually think we're in the period where ‘Satan has been loosed for a short season’ and we're gearing up for the final battle of Revelation 20:7-9.
I've spoken a lot about end times implications based on how we interpret Jesus' words to His Apostles, but the other major implications regard how we read Acts, the Epistles and apply that to our own Christian lives which is arguably quite a bit more important. To reiterate - it's my position that Christ had an important and specific role for the Apostles to play, which is different to the role He has for the rest of us. Christ assigned the Apostles with a commission to bring about the new age that would replace the old. There's many reasons to believe this, but one retort to anyone who disagrees is why there are no new Apostles since the twelve died? Acts, therefore, provides us with a narrative of the events surrounding the establishment of the Church which aligns with what Christ told the Apostles would happen in His various forewarnings to them. They shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published among all nations (Mark 13:9-10). Is that not quite clearly describing what we later read in Acts and the epistles?
This gets us to a topic that I have discussed a lot recently - and many of my closest brethren (some of whom will be reading this right now) have a position that is firmly opposed to mine. But in my own personal experience with the Lord, as well as my understanding of His Word, the modern Pentecostal interpretation of Acts 2 is one that I firmly disagree with. In Acts 2:4-5 we see an event where they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Modern Pentecostal Churches say that anyone can receive this gift of the Spirit and ‘speak in tongues’, but the words that immediately follow that verse in Acts 2:6-47 gives the full explanation and context around what had just happened. This was a prophetic event, one that reversed the events of Babel in Genesis 11 where the Lord confounded their language and scattered them abroad so that under the risen Christ Jesus all nations could return to Him. As the Nations all spoke foreign languages by the time of the first century, speaking in tongues enabled every man to hear them speak in his own language (Acts 2:6) thereby enabling the Apostles to carry out their commandment from Christ to go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mar. 16:15). How could the Apostles preach the Gospel to every creature when they only spoke Greek or Hebrew, when those in Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians (Acts 2:9-11) all spoke different tongues and therefore couldn’t understand their words?
My position on speaking in tongues is similar to my position on most of the other gifts spoken of in Acts such as healing and the working of miracles. I think in the context of the Word, these gifts were given so that the Apostles could spread the Gospels to all nations. They needed the ability to work miracles so that they would be heard. Does this make me a cessationist? No, I believe that God is sovereign and can give gifts of the Spirit when and where He pleases - not just at some apostate Church whose Pastor claims he is the giver of these gifts to all who will come forward to the altar. But to be honest, I tend to think most of these gifts are not in place today because of where I believe we are in the overall timeline of God’s plan. It was finished on the cross, the Gospel was published to all of the nations before the Temple was destroyed, and there is nothing left for the LORD to accomplish. Jesus tells us, being the body of Christ, what His will is and what we need to accomplish - “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower. (Luk. 14:26-27)” I think that the modern Church seeks gifts of the Spirit because we want to feel important and we want to see signs and evidence of our faith, yet this is contrary to how the Scriptures teaches us to practice our faith. Job didn’t seek a sign when he gave up everything including his family, wealth and status. Abraham didn’t seek out his own will when he took Isaac to the altar in complete obedience to the LORD’s will. Our perfect example of Christ did not seek out His own fleshly will when He was taken by the Romans and crucified. Faith is putting all of our trust in the LORD and laying down our fleshly lives in total obedience to Him with no expectation of anything in return in this world, knowing that all of our treasures are in Heaven. Amen.
Yep. We're getting closer to the Truth of it all with this one. May we always be willing to unlearn modern theology, so that we can be guided by His Spirit into the Truth of His Word. We don't have it all figured out but we continue to seek and search His Word for the Truth, while we are on this journey through eternity. We are to never to settle down here as if this is our home. We are to be about understanding who Christ is and who we are in Him, as he leads us to our Father in Heaven. May the LORD bless you Brother. TGBTG!
I largely agree with much of what you are saying here Luke, especially allowing foremost, scripture to interpret scripture. However, I would also note that God's Word is living, or like a crystal with many reflections through many dimensions that nevertheless emanate from the one light. Often there is the natural interpretation followed by the spiritual interpretation. Then, seemingly out of the blue, is Bible gematria or numerics sealing the verse or passage in another way. The difficulty for us humans is to see all the reflections (perhaps on a cave wall, but that is a different story) and then say, ah! That's it! I've got the whole picture! That's like saying we can put God in a box. We can't, I know you agree. Therefore, as you say, we need to approach the scriptures, which in the right hands becomes the living Word, with utmost care and respect, always asking God to teach us in the midst of our offerings in Christ at the Incense Altar, before the Most Holy Place, where the veil has been ripped down between Him who dwells there and our understanding. Rev 5:8; Matt 27:51; Heb 10:20; Ephesians 1: 15-23. On the question of timing, starting with your paragraph, "It's my contention", we read last week in Hebrews 6: "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit." That is, baptism and the laying on of hands with the expectation of healings or powerful ministry preparation (evidenced by spiritual gifts), were a given, still, in this rather general and late epistle, so obviously didn't end with the early epistles like the one written to the Corinthians. I think the summary of what I am saying, which is in agreement with much of what you are saying, is, let's allow God to keep revealing to us all the many dimensions of His scriptures and their fulfilments while firmly - and within God's grace - holding the basics, like baptisms and laying on of hands. The only time I see God's Spirit forbidding such things in the church is when the they fall out of grace, just as God removed His blessings from wayward OT Israel. What do you reckon?