A few Sundays ago my pastor made an excellent point — John 6:53-56 sounds like it’s about the Lord’s Supper but it’s not. However, the Lord’s Supper is about John 6:53-56.
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him (Jn 6:53-56).
You see, when comparing the events of the four gospels, the Lord’s Supper doesn’t take place until around John 13. This is important because whereas John 6:53-56 refers to the sacrificial death of Christ, the Lord’s Supper is to be a reminder to us of that event. But if we aren't careful, we might interpret John 6:53-56 as being the Lord’s Supper and conclude that partaking of the communion table saves us.
My pastor’s point got me to thinking the rest of the week about how easy it is to misinterpret Scripture. If we pull a verse or passage out of the middle of the Bible and interpret it without considering the context or the progression of revelation, we can easily put down the first building blocks of a false doctrine. And by using those false conclusions to help us interpret other portions of Scripture, we can build ourselves a faulty theology in no time at all.
Unfortunately, this happens all too often. One reason it does is many of us seem to believe progressive revelation includes the possibility that subsequent revelation may change the meaning of something previously revealed. In other words, instead of interpreting Scripture progressively — as it was meant to be understood — we read back a later revelation into something previously revealed and completely change its meaning. I have often witnessed this very thing. Someone will state that because it says such and such in Romans, James doesn’t actually mean what it says. Or, because Ephesians says such and such, Matthew such and such really means something different than what is written. You have to give us kudos, though, because it’s rather difficult to reconcile two opposing concepts. However, with a bit of twisting here and a little back-reading there, we usually manage quite well to come up with something or other.
Clear as mud, right? Okay, well let’s look at an example from Ephesians and Matthew:
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtor (Matt 6:12).
For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you (Matt 6:14).
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Eph 4:32).
Did you notice that Eph 4:32 is completely flipped around from what Matt 6:12 and 14 say? Matthew 6:12 and 14 were spoken by our Lord before His death and resurrection, when people were still under the Law. Ephesians 4:32, however, was spoken by Paul after Christ’s death and resurrection, when we were no longer under the Law. Therefore, in Matthew forgiveness was dependent on faith plus what we did (works), whereas in Ephesians forgiveness has already been granted apart from the Law (no works) because of what Christ has done for us. And the fact of the matter is, salvation by grace through faith alone had not yet been manifested in Matthew.
What do we usually do with these verses, though? We either read back Eph 4:32 into Matt 6:12, 14 and say Matt 6:12 and 14 really mean what Eph 4:32 is saying. Or, we state that in view of Eph 4:32, (and Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16) the forgiveness spoken of in Matt 6:12, 14 is only for the purposes of believers restoring fellowship with God (most likely reading back 1 John 1:3-9 into Matthew as well); all in an attempt to accommodate the meanings of both Matthew and Ephesians.
But later revelation on a subject does not make an earlier revelation mean something different. It may add to it or even supersede it, but it never changes its original meaning. Progressive revelation is rather like a building — and certainly the superstructure never replaces the foundation.
