Elisha A. Hoffman’s What a Wonderful Savior! in my format for guitar chords and melody in the key of D.
The shaded number in the second line is how I notate a fermata.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Elisha A. Hoffman’s What a Wonderful Savior! in my format for guitar chords and melody in the key of D.
The shaded number in the second line is how I notate a fermata.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
James Barr coined the term illegitimate totality transfer to signify the unwarranted reading into a particular occurrence of a word every possible meaning of the word. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), 218. In my dissertation, I coined the term illegitimate intra-Trinitarian transfer, which I patterned after Barr’s term, but I did not use it with reference to semantics.
The phrase illegitimate intra-Trinitarian transfer refers to the error of attributing a role or activity to one member of the Godhead in a given text when a careful examination shows that the passage is attributing that role or activity to a different member of the Godhead.
Illegitimate intra-Trinitarian transfer (IITT) obscures a right perception of the apostolic focus on testimony to both God and Christ by taking statements about the Father and attributing them to Christ or speaking of them as if they are only about Christ. Such use of these statements, especially on a repeated basis, hinders and obscures the full appreciation of their primary teaching.
Two examples from printed works illustrate IITT clearly. First, Warren Wiersbe’s explanation of Colossians 1:13-14 displays this error when it attributes multiple actions to Christ that the passage does not attribute to Christ but to the Father:
Sinners need a Saviour. These two verses present a vivid picture of the four saving actions of Christ on our behalf. . . . We could not deliver ourselves from the guilt and penalty of sin, but Jesus could and did deliver us. . . . Jesus Christ did not release us from bondage, only to have us wander aimlessly. He moved us into His own kingdom of light and made us victors over Satan’s kingdom of darkness. Earthly rulers transported the defeated people, but Jesus Christ transported the winners. Be Complete: How to Become the Whole Person God Intends You to Be (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1981), 45-46.
This explanation of Colossians 1:13-14 attributes actions to Christ that the passage does not attribute to Him but to the Father: the Father, not Christ, “rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
Second, Paul Enns’ writing similarly displays IITT:
The Son has redeemed the believer (Eph. 1:7), removed the wrath of God from the believer (Rom. 3:25), justified the believer (Rom. 5:1), provided forgiveness (Col. 2:13), and sanctified the believer (1 Cor. 1:2). The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 341.
Colossians 2:13 actually teaches that the Father has “quickened [us] together with Him [Christ], having forgiven [us] all trespasses.”
I have heard a number of people over the years commit IITT in their prayers by praying something like this, “Father, thank You for dying for us on the Cross.” The Father did not die on the Cross, and we should not pray this way.
These examples of IITT should alert us to be more careful in what we write and say. We must be diligent to handle the Word of God as accurately as possible (2 Tim. 2:15).
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Scripture reveals that God rendered His judgment among His people, Israel, through a remarkable variety of people. By your considering the information in this table, I hope you will come to a greater appreciation of the importance of the biblical concept of judicial agency.
Priests | Thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment. . . . . And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die (Deut. 17:9, 12). |
Prophets | Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal (1 Sam. 15:33). |
Kings | And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart (2 Sam. 19:19). |
Princes | Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice (Ezek. 45:9). |
Judges | And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face (Deut. 25:2). |
Rulers | Moreover thou shalt provide . . . able men, such as fear God . . . and place such over them, to be rulers . . . And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge (Exod. 18:21-22). |
Magistrates | Set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people (Ezra 7:25). |
Officers | Judges and officers shalt thou make thee . . . and they shall judge the people with just judgment (Deut. 16:18). |
Governors | I was appointed to be their governor (Neh. 5:14). And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God (13:22). |
Nobles | By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. |
Heads of tribes | It was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot . . . And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt (Gen. 38:24). |
Elders of the city | And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him and they shall amerce [fine] him (Deut. 22:18-19). |
Chief of the fathers of Israel | Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set . . . of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies (2 Chron. 19:8). |
Men of the city | And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die (Deut. 21:21). |
Witnesses and all the people | The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people (Deut. 17:7). |
Avengers of blood | The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die (Deut. 19:12). |
Parents | Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place (Deut. 21:19). |
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
In order to assess properly the relevance of an account in Acts for our own evangelism, we must carefully consider various aspects of the account that many people often overlook. Stephen’s speech (Acts 7) is a good example of a passage that illustrates some overlooked aspects that need to be handled more accurately.
Through the activities of certain people of a synagogue who were unable to resist his ministry (6:9-10), Stephen was accosted and brought before the Jewish council (6:11-12). False witnesses set up by his enemies then testified against him (6:13-14).
The high priest challenged him concerning the testimony borne by them (7:1). Luke records at length Stephen’s answer to the high priest (7:2-53) followed by the people’s very hostile response (7:54), further testimony by Stephen (7:55-56), and his martyrdom (7:57-60).
In the 56 verses of the testimony by Stephen that Luke records, we do not read of his explicitly testifying to the resurrection of Jesus. How should we understand the significance of his seeming lack of testimony to this key truth?
First, we should note that Stephen’s speech, strictly speaking, is not an evangelistic message as much as it is a defense speech.
Second, in keeping with what I argued in Parts I and II of this series, we must keep in mind that we cannot be certain that Luke has given us an exhaustive account of what Stephen did testify. This uncertainty should cause us to be cautious in what we dogmatically say about what he did not testify.
Third, it is very important for us to note specifically to whom Stephen spoke on this occasion. Some of those whose actions resulted in Stephen’s arrest and being brought to the council were people who had been unable to resist his ministry to them (6:9-10). Luke, however, does not tell us anything about what those people had already heard from Stephen.
Based on what we read about the apostolic testimony in all the preceding evangelistic accounts in Acts 2-5, we have every reason to believe that his testimony similarly included extensive witness to the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1:22). It is, therefore, almost certain that they had already received prior testimony to the Resurrection from Stephen himself before his speech to the council.
Furthermore, concerning not just these people from the synagogue, but also the others present at this occasion (the men whom the synagogue people suborned [6:11]; the people, the elders, and the scribes [6:12]; the false witnesses [6:13]), an earlier statement by Luke must also be taken into account.
In Acts 5, Luke recorded that the high priest had asked the apostles when they had been brought before the Council, “Saying, ‘Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us'” (5:27-28). Here, Luke’s record of the high priest’s charge against the apostles reveals that the high priest knew that the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their doctrine, which preeminently included testimony to the Resurrection (cf. 1:22).
Based on the high priest’s statement, therefore, we are justified in holding that the people present when Stephen gave his speech had already received prior testimony to the Resurrection. In fact, we know that the Jewish “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (4:5-7) did receive such testimony (4:10). We also know that “the captain with the officers” (5:26) and the Council and the high priest did receive such testimony (5:30).
Thus, even if Stephen had not borne any testimony to the Resurrection in his speech, which we cannot be certain of, his omission would have been before people who already had received testimony to the Resurrection. His omission, then, would not at all be exemplary for us in what we should do with first-time hearers in our evangelism.
The preceding analysis of Stephen’s supposed omission of testimony to the Resurrection in Acts 7 shows that we cannot be certain that he in fact did not bear such testimony. Furthermore, even if he had omitted such testimony in that speech, he would have done so with people who already had heard about the Resurrection.
For these reasons, we should not view Acts 7 as an account that teaches us that testimony to the Resurrection is sometimes optional in our evangelism with first-time hearers. At most, it shows that, if we do choose to omit such testimony, it should only be with hostile people whom we know have already received that testimony beforehand.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
The Bible was not so neglected a Book when the great revivals of 1857-59 swept over the United States and Great Britain. Neither was it so neglected in Moody’s time. During the late Manchu dynasty, scholars were expected to know the classics of their sages by heart. How do the scholars of so-called Christian lands measure up to that standard as regards the “World’s Greatest Classic”? It is nothing short of pathetic how so many, who come professedly to represent the Lord Jesus Christ in China, know so little of His Word. Thirty years ago the missionary ideal was to know the Bible so well that one would not have to carry around a concordance. Is the indifference to the Bible today on the part of so many missionaries due to the fact, perhaps, that they have discovered some better means with which to meet the needs of a sin-sick world?
—Jonathan Goforth, By My Spirit, 136
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
In Part I of this series, I pointed out the two explicit indicators in the Pentecost account that tell us that we do not have an exhaustive record of the testimony that Peter gave at that occasion. Based on that evidence, I argued that we should not hold that any record in Acts of an evangelistic encounter provides us with sufficient evidence to argue that testimony to a particular truth was not given in that encounter.
An analysis of three other passages in Acts reinforces this point.
Acts 9
Very soon after his salvation, Paul “preached Christ in the synagogues that He is the Son of God” (9:20). He “confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ” (9:22).
After Paul had come to Jerusalem, Barnabas informed the apostles that Paul “had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus” (9:27). In Jerusalem, Paul then “spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus” (9:29).
Some have argued from these statements that Paul preached only about Christ in these messages. Luke’s later record of Paul’s own testimony before king Agrippa about his ministry in Damascus shows that it is illegitimate to argue in this manner:
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance (26:19-20).
Paul emphatically testified that he had declared first in Damascus that the Gentiles “should repent and turn to God.” This testimony shows that Luke’s earlier record of Paul’s same ministry in Damascus is not exhaustive and is not intended to be taken as evidence that Paul had not preached repentance toward God in those messages.
Acts 13
Luke informs us that Barnabas and Saul entered a synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia on a Sabbath day (13:14). He tells us that there was a reading of the law and the prophets (13:15) followed by Paul’s message (13:16-41).
Many have overlooked the contribution of the reading from the OT to the total testimony received by Paul’s hearers on this occasion. We have no way of knowing what content his hearers received through that reading prior to his message. We, therefore, cannot legitimately assert with certainty that they did not receive testimony in this evangelistic encounter to any particular truth that is taught in the OT.
Acts 16
Following the miraculous events that took place, the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (16:30). They responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (16:31).
Based on these statements, a person argued with me years ago that the jailor was saved without testimony to the resurrection. The next verse, however, makes clear that he was not saved just hearing that one sentence: “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house” (16:32).
Paul and Silas testified more from the word of the Lord than just what verse 31 records. Luke does not tell us what that additional testimony was. Because we know that the record of the testimony that the jailor received is not exhaustive, it is illegitimate to say with certainty that he did not receive testimony to any particular truth, especially to God’s raising Jesus from the dead.
The following verses implicitly confirm this assessment. Luke tells us that the jailor was baptized (16:33), but he does not tell us how it came about that he knew that he was to be baptized and that he assented to that act. Plainly, we are to understand that Paul and Silas bore testimony to him to do so.
Luke concludes his record by saying, “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (16:34). Although it is possible that Luke intends for us from this statement to believe that these people believed in Jesus as God, it is at least equally likely that this statement reflects their salvation through belief in testimony about God the Father’s raising Jesus from the dead and through their subsequent confession of Jesus as Lord (cf. Rom. 10:9-10).
Along with the statements in Acts 2, these statements from Acts 9, 13, and 16 further teach us that we should not take the lack of mention of any particular truth in an evangelistic account in Acts as proof that no testimony to that truth was given in that encounter.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
God’s ordering the Israelites to eradicate the Canannites (Josh. 6:2; 17-18; 21; 24) has led many to attack the Bible and call into question its divine inspiration. People object especially to the Israelites’ killing of children.
In the past, I have taken various approaches in answering such attacks. Based on my recent reading in Scripture, I think that God may have given me insight into another helpful aspect of how to deal with this objection that I have not thought of before.
Because His own people had become very wicked in the time of Ezekiel, God commanded that they be slain (Ezek. 9:4-11), including the little children:
And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city. And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not. And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.
This passage shows that God dealt in the same way with His own people when they became very wicked as He had dealt with the Canannites in the past. He thus has impartially ordered at times the eradication of certain people, both Canaanites and Israelites.
Although pointing out this fact may not fully take away the objections to His dealings with the Canannites, presenting that He has treated even His own people in the same manner may help to some extent.
The teaching of these passages concerning God’s dealings with the children of wicked people is a difficult truth for us to handle on the human level. To help us put this issue into its proper biblical perspective, both for ourselves and for others, we should carefully note His impartiality in dealing in such a manner with wickedness among both the Canaanites and His people.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Learning to play ensemble music is a great way to develop many basic musical skills, such as rhythm and listening to both yourself and others as you play.
When I was teaching theory classes to young guitar students, I came up with a simple ensemble format for guitar music. In this post, the format provides the notes that are to be played for all four parts of the song God Is So Good.
Each part can be played by one or more students by paying attention to the Roman numeral that tells you on what string to play the notes for that part. Advanced students can try to play more than one part at a time.
Although the music itself is quite simple, working on it with one or more other guitarists can be a fun way to improve your guitar playing!
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
On this Mother’s Day, we should know and honor our mothers.
1. “The Mother of All Living”
As Bible believers, we must accept all that the Bible teaches. Scripture says, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). Many professing Christians are calling into question or denying the historicity of Adam and Eve (e.g., some professors at Calvin College).
If Eve was not the mother of all living, then Jesus was either wrong or deceptive in what He taught because He taught that Adam and Eve were real and that they were the first people that God made (Matt. 19:4-5; cf. John 3:12). The Christian faith would then be worthless.
Jesus was not wrong or deceptive. We must know that Eve was the mother of all living, and we must honor her as such. We are to honor Eve by defending her historical existence.
We are to honor Eve also by heeding the teaching of key passages in the NT that speak of her (1 Cor. 11; 2 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 2). God created her from Adam and for Adam and not vice versa (1 Cor. 11:8-9).
Eve was deceived by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3). We must honor her by learning from her failure that we must guard ourselves against false teachers who preach another Jesus and speak of receiving another spirit and of accepting another gospel (11:4).
Adam was formed before Eve and was not deceived (1 Tim. 2:13-14). We must honor Eve by learning from her succumbing to deception that we are not to allow women to teach men or usurp authority over them in the church (2:12).
2. “Thy Mother”
Every person that has ever lived has come into the world in the same way: he came out of his mother’s womb (Job 1:21). In the Ten Commandments, God declares, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee” (Ex. 20:12). The New Testament reiterates that teaching in Ephesians 6.
In various ways, we are to honor our mothers who gave us birth:
3. “The Mother of Us All”
In Galatians, Paul teaches us vital truth for all believers. He defends justification by faith without works. In his defense of that doctrine, he says, “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Gal. 4:26). Paul speaks of one here whom he says is “the mother of us all.”
Paul says that the Jerusalem that is above is the mother of all believers, and that she is free. He contrasts her with the earthly Jerusalem that was in bondage in his day.
How do we honor heavenly Jerusalem, our mother? Some people are currently saying that we have misunderstood Paul’s teaching about justification and the Law. They are trying to get Christians to change their understanding of justification and salvation. To honor “the mother of us all, we must steadfastly resist all such teaching (4:30; 5:1).
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
But to them the happiest days of all were not those high days and holidays. Through the mists of childhood the brightest associations lingered about one dear figure in the repose that always seemed to accompany a white crêpe shawl and satin gown. Sunday was the day on which mother gave herself to them as she could not through the week, and if there was one thing she cared about, it was that that day should be to every member of the household the happiest and most helpful of the seven. In the morning the children went with her regularly to the House of God, and there was more leisure to enjoy companionship at home on Sunday. But in addition, Mother had ways and means for making that day different from all others and much to be desired. The nicest toys and picture-books belonged to Sunday, as well as the prettiest frocks and a cosy fire in the drawing-room because the piano was there. Mother’s sweet voice made hymn-singing a delight. No talks were like her talks over the Bible, not to speak of Pilgrim’s Progress and other books that only appeared that day. Then she always had a basket of fruit for her little people in the afternoon. And just to see her looking so sweet and restful as she shared their enjoyments was not the least part of the happiness of the day.
Yes, home was home indeed and the nearest place to heaven, because it held that mother in whose heart was shed abroad the very love of God.
—Hudson Taylor in Early Years: The Growth of a Soul, 57
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.