2 Peter chapter 3. And the word of God reads as follows. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which I stir up your pure mind by way of remembrance, that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Saviour, Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts and saying, where is the promise of us coming? For since the father is still asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and as a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men find slackness. But as long as suffering to us were, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and listening on to the coming of the day of the Lord, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace without spot and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom that given unto him hath written unto you. as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and on stable rest, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen. And may God bless the reading from His word. Well I'm glad to be here again in the Lord's goodness to enjoy the fellowship of the saints in the worship of God and as the Lord enables to minister the Word of God. And our theme for this first session is handling the Word, handling the Word of God. How should we handle the Bible, not in physical terms, but the content of the Word of God. How should we go about seeking to profit from the Word of God? Well first of all consider the Bible is to be handled as the Word of God. The Bible is to be handled with as the Word of God. That is in a manner consistent with the fact that it is the Word of God. It should be approached with reverence as uniquely the Word of God. In Isaiah 66 and verse 2, Isaiah 66 and verse 2, We read, For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord. But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. Then in verse 5, Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word. your brethren that hated you and so on. But there is then this trembling at the word of God which is a mark of the godly. And the inspiration of the scriptures, the perfection extends not just to the concepts but to the very words themselves. So our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 5 and verse 18 says that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away till all be fulfilled. And the jot or yod is the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet and the tittle, the mark that distinguishes one letter from another. And so we must reverence the scriptures not simply as containing, having somewhere in there the Word of God, nor as being the Word of God in all that it teaches, but the very words are breathed out by God. That is why we should use a translation that is as literal as the English language will allow. The idea of formal equivalence, not dynamic equivalence. formal equivalence means translating the words of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into English words, whereas dynamic equivalence is the idea that the translator determines the idea that is meant to be expressed and gives that idea in words that are not literally the same but which simply, in his view, encapsulate the thought and intention of the passage. And the reason why many of us continue to use the authorised version is for that and other reasons that the authorised version aims at formal equivalence, not dynamic equivalence. That is not thought for thought or what the translator thinks is the thought translated into English, but the very words themselves. So that if the Hebrew or the Greek is ambiguous and open to various interpretations, the translator doesn't do the job of the interpreter, he simply translates and gives it ambiguously in the English translation. authorised version is outstanding in that respect. And it should be approached, scripture should be approached with humble prayer, with humble prayer or with humility and prayer, the two go together. The humble man is a praying man, the praying man is a humble man. It is to be received with meekness, James 1.21, that you receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save your souls. There is need of meekness to be told things by God. We live in a generation that is wise in its own eyes and will not be told anything. Least of all will they be told what God says. And that's why the whole idea of preaching is so much despised because preaching suggests that there is an authority, a divine authority, a revealed truth that has to be declared to men as binding. And the Christian is meek, not as meek as he should be, but meek. There is in every Christian a measure of meekness and of humility. He's been brought down from his lofty perch of unbelief and and the vain imagination that he can take the place of God. And he is dependent upon Christ Jesus for acceptance with God. And he approaches the Scriptures with meekness, with a willingness to be told by God what he should believe and what he should do. And this meekness must show itself in a dependence upon the author of the scriptures to teach us the meaning of his own word. in Psalm 119, some parts of which we have been singing, there is constant emphasis on the fact that we need to be taught by the Lord. Psalm 119 verse 18, Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Verse 27, make me to understand the way of thy precepts, so shall I talk of thy wondrous works. Verse 33, teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes, and I shall keep it unto the end. give me understanding and I shall keep thy law, yea I shall observe it with my whole heart. So there is an expression, there is to be an expression of our belief that the Holy Scriptures are breathed out by God in our praying to God to give us understanding in his own word. the day that we think we can manage to understand scripture without the work of the Spirit of God, we are in trouble and we need to remember that. And sometimes professing Christians who lay great stress upon the absolute necessity of a sovereign work of grace in order not only to understand but to be made willing to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ. Sometimes those who make great profession of what we know as Calvinism can be strangely inconsistent in that they think that thereafter they have little need of the Holy Spirit to lead them on into the knowledge of the Word of God. But we must remember that he who begins a good work in the elect of God, an effectual calling, that he who begins the good work is the one who performs it till the day of Jesus Christ. And that's true of our understanding and obedience to the Holy Scriptures. So if we do not pray for understanding in the scriptures, the first thing is we are denying that very Reformed faith which we profess, and secondly we are on the road to disaster. Pride in reading the scriptures is a forerunner of either great error or great foolishness in practice. We should approach the Scriptures looking for promises to embrace, for threatenings to tremble at, and for commands to obey. The Westminster Confession of faith is on scriptural ground when it states in chapter 14 second paragraph, by this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein, and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. If that is so then we should approach the scriptures looking for promises to embrace, threatenings at which to tremble and commands which we must obey. Likewise, the larger catechism, question 157, how is the word of God to be read? The holy scriptures are to be read with a high and reverent esteem of them, with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God and that he only can enable us to understand them. with desire to know, believe and obey the will of God revealed in them, with diligence and attention to the matter and scope of them, with meditation, application, self-denial and prayer. and the scriptures are to be then approached with that reverence and that attentiveness to the commands, the promises and the threatenings. 1 Thessalonians chapter 2 and verse 13, 1 Thessalonians 2 verse 13, for this cause Also thank we God without ceasing because when you receive the word of God which he heard of us, he received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe." He thanks God that they received the word. He doesn't congratulate them, he thanks God because God is the one who causes a sinner to be willing and able to receive the word of God. And consistently in the epistles, the Apostle Paul thanks God for his enabling the those who believe, to have become believers. He thanks God that the Romans from the heart believed the form of sound doctrine delivered unto them and so on. And if that is so at the beginning, it is so in the continuance. And especially the Apostle thanks God that they not only received his message as true or as admirable in some way, but as it is in truth, the Word of God. Then Acts 24 and verse 14. Acts 24 and verse 14. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." So the Apostle Paul declares himself to believe all the Old Testament. That's why the whole idea of believing the New Testament and not the Old is sheer nonsense. The Lord Jesus acknowledges the inerrancy of the Old Testament and the Apostles do likewise and this text indicates as much. So that is the attitude with which we must approach the Word of God. It should be approached with reverence, with humility and prayer and looking for promises, threatenings and commands to which we must respond. But then secondly, we must approach the Scriptures knowing that every part has only one true meaning. Every part of Scripture has only one true meaning. In 2nd Timothy 3.16 we are told that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It is breathed out by God, that's what the term means. That means that the Holy Spirit meant the scripture at all points to have a meaning, one true meaning. and only one true meaning. Evangelicalism often falls into mysticism, and Evangelical mysticism and Barthianism come perilously close to each other when the principle that there is only one true meaning to scripture is ignored. Barthianism is named after Karl Barth, he was a German theologian, he was a liberal who thought that scripture became the word of God when brought home in the experience But if we allow scripture to mean one thing for one person and something else for another person, then that particular outlook is not that different from Barthianism. Although Barth was a liberal, and the evangelical who espouses this approach is not. He says he believes the whole of scripture to be inspired by God. But if it can mean anything and everything to different people, then it's not really that much different. true. There are many applications and circumstances in which a particular passage of scripture is brought home to the heart and mind and conscience. But it is the one true meaning that must be applied to the given circumstances. Otherwise, we are back to human independence, aren't we? We're back to man being in charge again, that instead of submitting to the Word of God as authoritative, he rather merely imposes what he wants upon the text. We read of that in 2 Peter 3, 16, of those who were unlearn it, resting the scriptures to their own destruction, resting the scriptures, mangling it, making it fit with our ideas. And what better and easier way to do that than to say that scripture can mean one thing to you and another thing to somebody else. We end up just using the scripture to find what we want, to justify our chosen course of action. And if you approach scripture in that way, you will manage it, you will do it. If you come to scripture looking for justification for a course of action, that you are determined to follow, whether it's scriptural or not, but you want to convince yourself it's scriptural, you will find a way of doing it. God has given us his word in a manner that its truth is yielded to the meek. But the arrogant find what they want, or they convince themselves that they've found what they want. You approach scripture determined to find what you want to find, and you'll soon convince yourself that you've found it. The example that I've often used, and I hope those who've heard it before will bear with me, Hebrews 11 verse 8, By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should received for an inheritance, obeyed. And he went out not knowing whither he went. Years ago in my younger days as a Christian, I used to go to missionary conferences. And frequently you would hear the missionary or missionary candidate turn to this verse and say they read this verse and knew that they were called to Thailand or Japan or whatever, this verse does not tell anyone to be a missionary. Not one. It does tell everyone that we should be willing to do what the Lord requires of us, whatever it means. in terms of leaving family and home and so forth. That every one of us should not be so attached to a place or people that we would sin against God and disobey Him sooner than forsake Him. Whether any of us are called to labour in far off lands in the Gospel in the work of the Gospel, that's to be settled on other fixed biblical grounds applied to ourselves as individuals, our capacities, our gifts and so on. And not only in our judgement, but in the judgement of the Church of God. So this verse, no matter how powerfully it strikes home perhaps in reading the Scripture, it teaches one thing that is true for all God's people. Whether that principle worked out will mean going to another land is quite a separate question. But for that verse to be, as it were, or the force with which that verse comes to the consciousness to be proof, as it were, of a call to missionary endeavour is simply not true. It does not teach that. It teaches one thing to all. The outworking of that may vary from person to person. Scripture is organically inspired. Scripture is organically inspired. We'll explain what that means in a moment, but by organically inspired we mean as distinct from mechanically inspired. Now, what's the difference? Mechanical inspiration is the view that the human writers were somewhat like the speed typist You know that a professional typist, they hear what they have to type and they type it. And often if you ask them afterwards what it was about, what they were typing, they don't know. Because they don't think about the content. Their whole concentration is hearing the words and typing them. If they stop to think about it, well their speed would slow down. So the mechanical view is that God merely dictated the words and the human writers wrote them down and they didn't pass through the minds or the consciousness of the human instruments. They didn't pass through the thought processes of the human writer. Now this is evidently untrue. Ephesians 4 verse 1, Ephesians 4 verse 1, I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation with which ye are called. Paul says, I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, he is referring to his situation, he says, I beseech you He thought these thoughts and he, albeit under the inspiration of the Spirit, addresses the Ephesians. Romans chapter 12 and verse 1. Romans chapter 12 and verse 1. I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice wholly acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service. He says I beseech you and he is addressing them in the name of the Lord. Galatians 4 and verse 19. Galatians 4 and verse 19, My little children of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. Here the apostle pours out his heart to them under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. The biblical writers often address particular situations personally or they record what they personally have witnessed John 21 and verse 24. John 21, 24. This is the disciple which testified of these things and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true. Or in Acts 21 and verse 1. and it came to pass that after we were gotten from them and had launched, we came with a straight course onto Coas and so on. There in the Book of Acts, there are parts of the Book of Acts known as the We, the We sections where Luke, the inspired writer, was in the company of the Apostle Paul and others. 2 Peter 1 and verse 16. 2 Peter 1 and verse 16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. In other words, Peter is telling them what he has seen himself. Sometimes the inspired writer acknowledges that he has received information from another. Luke chapter 1 and verse 1 and 2, Luke 1, 1 and 2. For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. So it's quite clear that the prophets, the apostles addressed particular situations that under the inspiration of the Spirit they expressed what was in their heart and mind by the Spirit of God. You say then, is there a human factor in the content of Scripture? Is there a human factor? Well, yes and no. No, not in the sense of making the scriptures anything less than totally infallible and inerrant and exactly as God intended them to be. So when we speak of a human factor, we do not mean an element of fallibility. We do not mean that there is divine inspiration but here and there they got it wrong because of some human factor. In that sense there is no human factor, no fallibility. But we believe in providence, do we not? We believe that the circumstances that occasioned the writing of Amos or of Galatians or 1 Corinthians was foreordained of God in eternity and brought to pass in due time. And we believe, do we not, for example, that Saul of Tarsus being brought up in a Jewish family in a Gentile context in which he would become learned in the text of scripture and also aware of Greek philosophy and so on and able to speak Hebrew and Greek. and develop a particular style of writing, we believe that all these things were likewise ordained of God. And under the unerring and infallible direction of the Holy Spirit, It was within the plan of God that he would write, as he did to the Galatians, to the Corinthians, to address the problems that had arisen in these churches in the eternal plan and providence of God. For it was all planned of God. And so the personality and the circumstances of background of the Apostle Paul was indeed, they were indeed different from the Apostle John. And so the epistles of Paul have a different style from the epistles of John. There's no question they do. But those styles and all that contributed to their style of writing were all eternally planned and ordained of God and brought about in his providence so that the Spirit of God working in them caused them to write exactly what God intended to be written. So that's what we mean by organic inspiration. Not that it's less than infallible, but that all the background and all that led up to the writing of that which is written was all within the plan and purpose of God, so that the unerring result was exactly as God intended it to be, with the particular style of the individual writer included. Now the reason that the mechanical view is popular within American fundamentalism is because they are largely Arminian in outlook. They have a defective view of divine sovereignty and providence and God's government of all If you believe that God isn't absolutely in control of everything, then you have to think more in terms of God merely intervening and, as it were, leave out of the picture the circumstances that led to the inspired writers writing as they did and in the manner and style that they did. And so there is a connection between the mechanical view of inspiration and Arminianism and a failure to understand the doctrine of divine sovereignty. That one is necessitated by the other and that's why they're often found together. But if we have a biblical view of the sovereignty of God and of Providence, then we can say yes, Paul writes in one style, John writes in another, but both in their writings are absolutely infallible and there is no error, much less contradiction of any kind between the two. And because we believe that the Bible was given in this manner. We do not believe that it is simply a collection of individual verses disconnected from each other. We do not believe that we should approach the Scriptures in the manner of a promise box and just pluck out a verse and ignore what has gone before or behind. We believe that God inspired the scriptures so that there was a pattern of thought in the inspired writer's mind as he unerringly wrote down the truth of God. And that's why every verse in scripture must be interpreted in context. That is, we should not take a verse and ignore what's before it and what's after it and make it mean that it was never intended to mean. We must look at the setting, the train of thought, if there is one. Perhaps one exception to some extent is the book of Proverbs, because their Proverbs, many of them stand on their own. as thoughts, and to some extent the question of context is less immediate in some parts of the book of Proverbs, because they are meant to be stand-alone thoughts. But, for example, in the book of Romans or Ephesians, we are to seek to understand the thought from one verse to the next, the continuous train of thought. And that is essential to a right handling of the Word of God. Another point to remember is that we are not to treat scripture as if it's just been written for 21st century Northern Ireland. You say, well, but it's the Word of God to us, and so it is. But to illustrate the point, 1 John 4 verse 18. My little children, it is the last time. It is the last time. So, here in the 21st century, Many people read that and they say it is the last time. That's telling us that we're now in the last time. Well, actually it was telling people in the first century it is the last time. That means it still is the last time and it's further on in the last time and the things mentioned are further advanced, but it was the last time then. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious here, but you do find that many people in this part of the world, they read the Bible as if it has come directly to them. I suppose it's the desire for a personal word from the Lord. But it is personal if we recognise when it was written, to whom it was written, what it meant then and what it must still mean now. but we don't leap from one to the other as if it automatically applies simply to our generation. So we look at what was written, when it was written, why it was written and the thought pattern involved in what is written. And that gives us the meaning intended by the Spirit of God. Fifthly, the literary forms of the books of the Bible are various. The literary forms. Some parts of the Bible are historical. Some parts are parables. Some parts are epistles. Some parts are allegorical. Some parts are proverbs. It's all the Word of God. It's all infallible. But we are not to ignore these distinctions in terms of the form of writing. If we do, we can end up in disaster. To give some examples. Do not treat a passage as allegorical if there are no grounds for doing so. And especially if it makes good sense without being allegorised. God does not expect us to take his word in a passage which makes perfect good sense, taken literally, and to supposedly improve the thing by spiritualising it. That's just us making it mean what we want it to mean, instead of submitting to what it actually means and obviously means. It's adding to the Word of God. Or to give another example, don't treat parables as allegory. in the sense of getting a meaning from every detail. Now it is true that there are cases in the parables where every part means something. The Lord Jesus explaining the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew chapter 13 Matthew 13 verse 37, He answered and said unto him, He that soweth the good seed is the son of man, the field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked world. The enemy that soweth them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the world, and the weepers are the angels. There the Lord Jesus explains every detail, every item in that parable. Why did he do so? Well someone said he's showing us how to interpret all the parables. He does something similar with the parable of the sword. But we believe that the reason the Lord Jesus did that in this case is because that isn't the normal manner in which the parables are to be handled. The reason the Lord Jesus did so here is because this parable is different from other parables, that normally the parable has one main lesson, and the detail in the story, the physical story if you like, the detail is all geared to emphasise and to work towards that particular lesson. Here it was different and so Christ gives the explanation. But that is not the norm. The norm is, you say, what is this teaching? What is the point of this parable? What is the lesson? And the details of the story being told all serve to underline and highlight that lesson. Take the parable of the Good Samaritan. the Good Samaritan, the parable, it shows the undiscriminating love that is to be characteristic of the Kingdom of God. Whereas the Pharisees were saying, who is my neighbour? Christ is saying, here, look, listen to this. The Samaritan looks after the man who had fallen among thieves and was in bad shape and he takes him on his asks and takes him to the inn. He gives the innkeeper two pence and tells the innkeeper that that's to cover the costs, but if it's more than that, he'll give him more when he comes back. What are the two pence? What are these two pence? Well, you see, they're the two sacraments. No, no, they're the two tables of the law. Not at all, they're the two covenants. In fact, they're anything you want them to be. Because there's no basis for attaching a meaning to them in the parable, absolutely none, and it becomes pure guesswork, pure random, you make them mean whatever you want them to mean. Because they're not meant to mean anything, they're simply showing that this Samaritan How far he went, he not only helped the man on the spot, he not only put him on his donkey, he not only took him to the inn, he actually paid the man to look after him. And it's showing the extent to which this unselective love that is to characterise the true people of God must go. But you see, once you depart from treating it as a normal parable, you immediately move into the realm of randomness. It means whatever you want it to mean. And the authority of Scripture is undermined by this. It undermines the authority of Scripture. It doesn't really build it up. It doesn't extol the authority of Scripture. Another example, Genesis 43, 27. Here is Joseph before Pharaoh, and he asked them of their welfare. Or rather, sorry, Joseph with his brother. And he asked them of their welfare and said, Is your father well? The old man of whom you speak, is he yet alive? Someone seriously took that verse and that phrase, the old man of whom he spake, is he yet alive? And actually preached on the subject of indwelling sin. The old man, is he still alive? And this was done seriously. Now what's wrong with that? We know it's wrong, but why is it wrong? Well, it's wrong because it's taking straight history and treating it as allegory. And it isn't allegory, it's history and it doesn't need spiritualising. The story of the account, the historical account of Joseph does not need any clever spiritualising. It's full of spiritual instruction. And it needs none of this foolery. to try and improve it. Exodus 20 verse 14, thou shalt not commit adultery. A mystical preacher actually did preach on that verse and said the real meaning is that Christ must not covet the non-elect. It doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means what it says, it's a precept. It's not an allegory, it's a precept. It means that if you're married, you mustn't commit adultery. That's all, that's it. Of course, the Lord Jesus brings out that it means all the thoughts and intents of the heart inclining towards it. That's the deep meaning of it. But it doesn't need spiritualising. And this kind of foolishness surely is verging into the vain jangling of which the Apostle speaks in 1 Timothy 1, 6 and 7. Even though sometimes good men fall into it, nevertheless it is undermining the authority of scripture. It seems very It seems very high stuff, but it isn't, because the authority is removed from the text of Scripture and the authority becomes the great man who claims this wonderful insight to see what nobody else saw. And so the authority is transferred from Scripture to the ingenuity of the revered preacher. And it also shows that you can safely ignore what is known as the law of the first mention. This is an invention and it's not right. The idea that if you're struggling with the meaning of something, you go back to where that term is first used in the Bible. Well the man who used the reference to the old man in Genesis, on that view, he's got it right. That's the first mention, or maybe it isn't, of the old man. So if that's what it meant, if it meant an old man there, it must mean the same in Romans. Ignore it. The fact that a term occurs early in the Bible, that term could be used in different ways in different places. And it isn't true that a term once used in the Bible must always mean exactly the same. And that's not true even in the original languages, much less in English. It depends on the setting and the context. But then also, be consistent through a passage. Be consistent. Revelation chapter 13. Revelation 13 and verse 15. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast. that the image of the beast should both speak and cause, that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." The mark of the beast. What is it? Is it really people going around with a mark on their forehead? Is it? Well, is the beast a literal beast? Is the beast that came out of the sea in verse 1, is it a literal beast coming out of a literal sea? And then the beast that takes over in verse 11, is he a literal beast? And what about the horns? And what about the speaking like a dragon? Are these literal? A literal beast with literal horns, literally speaking like a dragon? Well, the answer is no. We all know they are symbolic. Of course they are. The book of Revelation is full of symbolism. It's full of references to Old Testament historical events and applying the principles to the situation of the people of God in the New Testament. It's full of ceremonial Old Testament language with a meaning for the people of God in the New. And the beast is symbolic? The horns are symbolic? Well then, the mark of the beast is symbolic. Why should it be physical? So we are not to expect a literal mark in people's foreheads, because the whole passage is to be consistently taken as symbolic, it has meaning. This isn't to make it so vague as to have no meaning, it's to pin down what the meaning is. The mark of the beast. Beast is the Antichrist. Mark is a sign of ownership, isn't it? The redeemed are sealed with the seal of Christ. We read of them later in Revelation that they have the seal of Christ. This is the opposite. This is the Antichrist. His ownership, his possession. That brings us to our fifth point. Take the obvious sense, if there is one, and interpret difficult passages in the light of the plain ones. Take the obvious sense if there is one. Don't try to be clever with the Word of God. Don't try to, as it were, magnify your own ingenuity with the Word of God. If you approach scripture in that way, you will stumble. The wayfaring man and the fool will head on ahead of you. The meek, those who have little natural gifts, they'll storm ahead of you in the truth of God. Because they lean upon God and they take God at His word, while you're trying to show what a clever fellow you are. and approach scriptures, yes, with a systematic knowledge of doctrine, that doctrine that you have attained to so far. But the purpose of our knowledge of systematic biblical teaching, when we approach a passage of scripture, is to prevent us going off at tangents. It's not so that we can deny the obvious meaning of the text. What I mean here is this. There are some passages of Scripture that we approach with an awareness of the overall teaching of Scripture. And this passage of Scripture, which is difficult, we are prevented from going off at foolish tangents by the limitation set upon its meaning by what we already know from Scripture. But there is a danger here, and that danger is this, that we deduce from what we already know that a passage cannot mean what it self-evidently does mean. In other words, we must set a restriction upon our use of deduction. that because this is true, this is true, this is true, therefore this must be true and that verse that seems to say this can't possibly mean it. We must let the text of scripture speak. Yes, limit the possible meanings by virtue of what we already know, but don't contradict the obvious meaning because of what we already know. And then start with the plain passages. If I may be allowed one more quotation from the Westminster Confession of Faith, paragraph 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture which is not manifold but one, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. When a passage is complex, difficult, what do the plain passages teach? That will help us with the difficult ones. But you know, so many people start with the difficult ones. And then they end up, having got them wrong, they end up mangling the straightforward ones to fit in with the wrong conclusion. If I may take a risk, let's talk about Revelation 20. How many people start with Revelation 20, get it all wrong, It's a difficult passage. It's full of symbolism. And they get it wrong. And then they go to the straightforward passages. 2 Thessalonians 1 teaches very clearly that Christ's return is a single event. It's quite plain, quite clear. There is no thousand years, there is no rupture intervening. 2 Thessalonians 1 verse 6, Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you who are troubled, rest with us. When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God. and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe, because our testimony among you was believed in that day. One day. Destruction of the wicked, glorification of the saints. One day. If you start there, you'll have it fixed. Christ's return is a single event. Then when you go to Revelation 20, you'll not end up with some fanciful interpretation because the plain passage, you've got it pinned down. Christ's return is a single event. It's taught there in 2 Thessalonians chapter 1. It's taught in John 5. and verse 28 and 29. John 5 verse 28, marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. The hour is coming, that's a fixed point. General resurrection. And so when you go to Revelation 20 you see, Whatever these two resurrections are, it's not the resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the resurrection of the wicked. It can't be, because I know from John 5, I know from 2 Thessalonians 1, that the coming of Christ is a single event and that the resurrection of the just and the unjust will take place at the same time. Start with the straightforward passages. Don't overreach yourself. and think that you can tackle the hard passages without the benefit of the more straightforward ones. And that's particularly true in the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation is crammed with Old Testament symbolism, typology and history. And yet people who have never studied Old Testament typology and history and ceremonial worship. They tackle the book of Revelation and they get it all wrong. Of course we all struggle with the book of Revelation but we need the background knowledge to begin to understand much of Revelation and yet people start at the wrong end. Then another thing, never use culture, never use culture randomly to avoid the demands of any passage. Never use culture as a random avoidance of the demands of any passage of scripture. We're living in a day when people, they read the passage of scripture, it says something they don't like, ah well that was the culture of that time. We're back to the old human autonomy. We want to be in the driving seat. If there's something we don't like, oh, well it was for the culture of that time. It's just liberalism, isn't it? George Gillespie, the Scottish theologian, has some very interesting words on this. He says, we hold that not only ought we to obey the particular precepts of the word of God, but that we are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable example of his apostles, in all things where it is not evident, they have had special reason moving them thereto, which do not concern us." That's in Gillespie's Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, page 428. What Gillespie is saying is, if there's no reason to think it's governed by peculiar circumstances of that time or place, whether local or general culture, then it stands. Our starting point is that whatever is commanded, whatever Christ did, whatever the apostles did, that's what we do, unless there are reasons deducible from the text of Scripture to think otherwise. But what we don't do is say, well, it would be silly to do that, it must be cultural. That just puts man where he wants. He wants to judge Scripture, he wants to select with Scripture. The right attitude is submission to Scripture. If there's no ground in the text for saying it was temporary, it was cultural, it was for that time, it carries on. Some things were unique to those times. Of course they were. There aren't apostles now, there aren't prophets. And the accompanying miraculous gifts, they were temporary and that can be shown from scripture. But it mustn't be done randomly. If it can't be shown to be temporary, it stands. Sixty. Always study so as to apply the word of God. always study so as to apply the word of God. If you have to read less scripture to read it properly, do so. Better to read less scripture properly than a lot of scripture superficially. If you have a hectic lifestyle, your time is limited. Don't skim over an unrealistically long passage of scripture just so that you'll feel alright because you've read the set amount of material. Better to read less and to meditate and learn its truth. Better to have truth settled in our minds, layer by layer, line upon line, precept upon precept, than to try and cram everything in and learn nothing properly, either in theory or in practice. But seek to apply scripture. Bible study will have an effect every time. Unapplied knowledge will feed pride every time. To learn some, perhaps even true doctrine from the scripture and to not apply it to the heart, to the life. You see, we are desperately wicked, you must understand that. By nature we are desperately wicked. And truth unapplied becomes an occasion of pride. Look how much I know, look how much I understand. Whereas truth applied, prayerfully, seeking God's grace to believe what is written and to follow it, it will result in humility. There is no doctrine in the Word of God which properly understood and properly applied does not lead to a higher estimation of God and a lower estimation of ourselves. And if it doesn't do that, then it hasn't been applied properly and all it will do will be that knowledge that puffeth up, that knowledge that, well we can show people how much we know. And even if we don't show other people the inner glow, I know, I know, I'm in the know, I've learned. Truth must be applied every time. Truth understood in the mind. If it's not applied, will lead to pride. If it is applied, it will lead to humility before God. The need of infectious ministerial example. The need of infectious ministerial example. We're not all ministers here, but there's one or two anyway. Ministers handle the Word of God in public. And they must set the example. It's an awesome thing, but they must If they abuse and twist the text, if they use a text simply as a springboard to say what they wanted to say, and they couldn't find a text that really taught it, people see that. They may not realise what's going on, but they pick up, oh that's the way you handle the Bible. But on the other hand, if people see ministers carefully, honestly, handling the text of scripture, by the blessing of God, even though they never learn about things like hermeneutics and so on, it never crosses their mind, but they pick up an instinct as to how scripture should be handled. And that does happen, that people do pick up an instinct so that the next time they're away from their own church and they're at some rather less orthodox event and they hear scripture messed about with, they can see it. They know that's not the way to handle it. And that does happen. So ministers must set an infectious good example of handling the text of scripture, and preferably they will not just say what the text means, but they will show why it means that, and why it must mean that, and why it can't mean anything else but that. And then finally, be humble enough to ask questions. Be humble enough to ask questions. You may be astonished to know that the Lord Jesus did. Luke chapter 2 verse 46. Luke 2 verse 46. And it came to pass that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. But it does say he asked questions. in his human nature, the Lord Jesus, was the perfect man of the Word. He grew up learning, speaking of the Word. And he was the perfect, sinless man of the Word of God. He fulfilled that Word. He lived by the Word of God. In the wilderness When Satan tempted him, he said, it is written, it is written, it is written. On the cross, Psalm 22, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Psalm 31, verse 5, into thy hands I commit my spirit. The last phrase of Psalm 22, it's done, it's finished. Christ lived as the man of the Word. We need to learn. Ask. Ask those who are reliable in the teaching of the Scriptures. Ask them. And be like the Bereans and examine the Scriptures. See whether these things are so. And memorize the Scriptures. Memorise them. How are we going to use the sword of the Spirit if we don't have it to hand? We need to know Scripture. Yes, we have our written Bibles, as many generations before us did not have. How did they manage? In those generations where people didn't have Bibles, where the only contact direct with Scripture was when they went to the place of worship and the big Bible was read in public. That's all they heard. How much would we know? How much Scripture would we know? How much of this morning's reading can you remember? There was a time when people had nothing else. But we have with Bibles. But we don't always have our Bibles on us. Supposing a day came when we didn't have Bibles. How much is there? One of the biggest disasters that the multiplication of Bible versions, quite apart from anything else, has caused is the demolition, to a large extent, of Scripture memorisation. Everything becomes vague and indistinct. Use one version. One version. Needless to say I think it should be the authorised version. But use one version. Get it into your memory. Everything is becoming vague in the minds of the rising generation. And even in the minds of ministers. They can't quote scripture. because they've read this version and that version and the other version and they haven't memorised scripture. If you stick to one version, you won't necessarily have to train yourself to memorise, it sticks. An older generation, with far less of the helps and so on that we have, had far more scripture in their memories. Some of you will know, you visit old people in hospital and perhaps they are losing their faculties and they can't remember much. They can't even remember who their families are. And you start reading the scriptures and they start reciting it with you. They can remember it all. Take the average young Christian today. I'm talking about professional Christians, not the world. Ask them, see if they know any scripture. Even those who know what they believe. They've learned concepts. They've maybe even learned a system of doctrine, that's a good thing. But ask them, what's the biblical basis? You believe in predestination. Good. Where is it? Where is it in the Bible? They know it's there somewhere. But they don't know where. We need to be able to use the sword of the Spirit. And so not only to have it in written form in our hands, but to have as much as possible in our hearts and minds. Well then, let us live by the words that have proceeded out of the mouth of God. Romans 15 verse 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Amen.