Archives For Exposition

How a Noteworthy Statement by King Solomon Helps Put Certain Limitations in a Right Perspective

April 13, 2015

First Kings 4:29-34 highlights the surpassing greatness of the wisdom that God gave King Solomon:

1Ki 4:29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.

 30 And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.

 31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.

 32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.

 33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.

 34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

These breathtaking statements relate the remarkable breadth and depth of wisdom that God gave to King Solomon.

In the very next chapter, however, we read that King Solomon sought out the services of Hiram king of Tyre to render necessary service for the building of a house for God’s name (1 Kings 5:1-6). In fact, Solomon himself declared that the Sidonians were uniquely skilled in a way that none of the Israelites was:

1Ki 5:6 Now therefore command thou that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon; and my servants shall be with thy servants: and unto thee will I give hire for thy servants according to all that thou shalt appoint: for thou knowest that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians.

From this statement by Solomon himself, we learn that the superlative wisdom that God gave Solomon did not extend to the skill of cutting timber!

The greatness of Solomon’s wisdom, therefore, included the skill of discerning what areas he (and all the others around him) was not especially gifted at and the skill of accurately assessing who had the skills that he himself lacked. From this noteworthy statement by King Solomon, we should learn that an important facet of living our lives wisely to the do the will of God in our lives is to recognize what areas God has not gifted us in and to avail ourselves freely of the services of those whom He has gifted in those ways.

Moreover, we should not feel that we are somehow stupid or unmanly or lacking if we are not able to do some specific tasks well, as many others may be able to do them. If someone who was so immensely gifted supernaturally by God as Solomon was yet lacked a high degree of a specific skill involving manual labor, we who have not been directly blessed by God to any degree comparable to what Solomon was have no need to feel ashamed or inadequate because we are not particularly skillful in doing certain or even many manual tasks well!

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition
 permalink

How to Apply Romans 14:1-15:13 Properly to the Debates about Christian Music: Part I

March 21, 2015

Many evangelicals as well as other Christians use Romans 14:1-15:13 frequently to challenge the views of Christians who hold conservative music positions. Typically, these believers who hold non-conservative music positions regard themselves as the strong believers of this passage and view those with conservative positions as the weak believers spoken of here.

To apply Romans 14:1-15:13 properly to any disputed area of Christian belief and practice requires thorough attention both to the larger context of the book of Romans and to the nature of the issues under consideration in this passage. Through giving such attention to this passage, we are able to assess correctly the validity of the common contention that those with conservative music positions are the weak believers of this passage.

In Part I of this series, I consider how putting Romans 14:1-15:13 in its larger context of the book of Romans is necessary for determining its proper application to the debates about Christian music. In Part II of this series, I intend to examine how the nature of the issues under consideration in Romans 14:1-15:13 itself bears upon its application to the debates about Christian music.

Romans 14:1-15:13 in Light of Its Larger Context of the Book of Romans

God did not give Romans 14:1-15:13 as a self-contained revelation of His mind about how to handle the issues that Christians debate; He gave this passage as part of the whole book of Romans. We can only rightly understand and apply this passage, therefore, when we properly relate it to other teaching by Paul in the book of Romans that has direct bearing on what sort of issues are in view in this passage.

The following six points bring out various aspects of Pauline teaching in the book of Romans that directly relate to the debates about Christian music:

1. Inventors of Evil Things — Paul taught that reprobate humans are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). I have previously discussed (in this post) the relevance of this statement for the debates about Christian music. Concerning what issues Romans 14:1-15:13 pertains to, we can be certain that the teaching of this passage does not apply to issues concerning musical styles that evil humans have originated as inventors of evil.

2. The Whole Creation is in Bondage to Corruption — Paul testifies that the entire universe is under the bondage of corruption:

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

To support their music positions, many Christian proponents of non-conservative music positions espouse views that in effect exempt instrumental music from the effects of the Fall of man. Scripture, however, provides no basis for holding that the bondage of the whole creation to corruption has not affected human creation of and use of instrumental musical styles.

3. Conformity to the World — Paul commands believers not to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). Many of those who hold non-conservative music positions in effect argue that this teaching does not apply to the instrumental musical styles created by humans who oppose God because they hold that all musical styles are inherently good and fit for human use by virtue of their being divinely created. Not only is there no Scripture to support such a view about the necessary inherent fitness of all musical styles, but also Scripture provides revelation that refutes the validity of such an assertion.

4. Casting off the Works of Darkness — Paul commands believers to “cast off the works of darkness” (Rom. 13:12). Scripture teaches that Satan is the prince who is energizing and ruling over the darkness of this evil world (Eph. 2:2; Col. 1:13).

Many rock musicians have testified to the controlling and originating role of demons in the production of their music. We can be certain that Paul never intended Romans 14:1-15:13 to be applied to things and practices that entail humans engaging in such demonically sourced works of darkness.

5. Turning from Dissolute Living — Paul enjoins believers not to live dissolute lifestyles:

Rom 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

Those who have originated rock music are infamous for their evil lifestyles, and they have testified that they created this music with the intent of promoting such wicked lifestyles. We can be certain that Romans 14:1-15:13 does not apply to music and other things that are so closely associated in these ways to people who live and promote such dissolute lifestyles.

6. Making No Provision for the Lusts of the Flesh — Paul directs believers not to make any provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts (Rom. 13:14). Because testimony directly from rock musicians abounds that they created their music for the purpose of influencing people to fulfill various lusts of the flesh, we can confidently hold that Romans 14:1-15:13 does not apply to such music that was specifically created to have these effects on people.

Conclusion

An examination of the larger context of Romans 14:1-15:13 within the book of Romans shows that Paul provides teaching in at least six passages that addresses considerations that show that issues that involve these considerations are issues to which Romans 14:1-15:13 does not apply. Because all six of these passages have direct bearing on certain aspects of key issues involved in the debates about Christian music, believers who hold conservative music positions because they heed the application of these passages to these issues are not the weak believers spoken of in Romans 14:1-15:13.

See my post Resources That Provide Answers to Key Issues Concerning CCM for much more biblical information about issues concerning what music God accepts in corporate worship.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

How Genesis 4:21 Directly Applies to the CCM Debate

March 7, 2015

Whether or not all musical styles are inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship is a key point of dispute among believers concerning CCM. Because Genesis 4:21 is the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments, examining its relevance to the CCM debate is vital.

In my experience, however, Genesis 4:21 has not been considered thoroughly by most people on either side of the CCM debate. I have previously written several articles that treat various aspects of what Genesis 4:21 reveals, especially in relation to certain issues concerning CCM.1

This post brings out yet another facet of its teaching about music that applies to the CCM debate in a way that I have not previously discussed. To understand the application of this facet of Genesis 4:21 to the CCM debate, we have to examine it in relation to its surrounding context that includes many biblical references to divine creative activity and some other references to human creative activity.

References to God as the Creator of All Things in Genesis 1-11

Through at least 30 direct references to divine creative activity2 in Genesis 1-11,3 God indisputably asserts at the beginning of our canonical arrangement of Scripture that He is the Creator of all created things. It is worth noting also that all of these references speak of God’s creating things that man did not play any role in their creation (for example, light, the expanse, and the animals).

Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that only one of these 30 references speaks of God’s making something that humans could conceivably even have made or played a role in its making: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). Based on this data, we know that the Spirit is purposely directing to our attention numerous statements about distinctively divine creative activity in these chapters.

References to Humans as the Makers of Certain Things in Genesis 1-11

Only after we have read 24 statements about what God has created do we encounter the first statement about something that man made:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

This earliest reference to human creative activity speaks of humans taking something that they did not make (the fig leaves) and fashioning something else out of it (aprons; for a fuller explanation of the vital importance of this text for issues concerning the CCM debate, see this post).

Genesis 4 provides the next information that we have about human creative activity (Gen. 4:17, 20, 21, 22). Among those statements is the earliest statement that we have about human musical activity:

Gen 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

We must not fail to note that the first information that the Spirit gives to us about human musical activity directly concerns not their singing but their playing musical instruments. Moreover, the Spirit does not frame His presentation of this revelation in such a way as to highlight God’s working in these people to produce and do what they did.

Instead, the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.

Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.

Application to the CCM Debate

Christian supporters of the use of rock music and CCM rely heavily on an argument based on God as the Creator of all musical styles to support their views. They argue that God is the Creator of all musical styles, and therefore they are all inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship.4

Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created all musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.

Conclusion

When believers who hold to the propriety of Christian use of rock music and CCM seek to defend their views, they must not use an illegitimate argument from the supposed divine creation of these styles to justify their views. To defend their views properly, they must show from the Bible why they believe that these styles are fit for Christian use in spite of biblical evidence that shows that not even all the animals that God originally created as good were acceptable for offering to Him in worship even by the time of the Flood.

1 See these previous posts for more information.

2 Genesis 1:1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22; 3:3, 21; 5:1, 2; 6:6, 7; 7:4.

3 Genesis 1-11 is a natural place to limit our examination because these chapters naturally go together in providing us with information about early human history.

4 See my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a biblical treatment of evidence from Genesis that disproves the view that all musical styles are inherently moral.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

Learning From Peter as a Witness of Christ

February 27, 2015

Jesus chose Peter to be the leader of the apostolic company and entrusted him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:16-19). After giving them instructions about how He wanted them all to be witnesses of Him to the whole world (Acts 1:8), we first see in the book of Acts that Peter led the believers in choosing the necessary replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26).

In Acts 2, we read of Peter’s preaching the first apostolic message in obedience to Jesus’ directive for them to be His witnesses. This premier gospel message has many instructive features that we need to learn from so that we will be the witnesses of Christ that we should be.

Peter as a Witness in Jerusalem

Peter preached to men who were devout Jews (Acts 2:5) from every nation, but before he did so, they all heard supernaturally produced testimony to the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11). Because the Spirit has chosen not to give us any more information about what that testimony included, we cannot be certain of what specific content they received through this precursor to his message.

Following this initial supernatural testimony, Peter explained to his hearers what they had just witnessed signified (Acts 2:14-21). This means that his hearers received a lengthy two-part precursor to his actual message.

When we look at Peter’s message (Acts 2:22-36), we see that it was preeminently a God-and-Jesus message that highlighted that God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted Him (Acts 2: 22; 32, 36). When the people responded by asking him and the rest of the apostles what they should do in light of what he had preached to them (Acts 2:37), Peter instructed them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38-39), just as Jesus had commanded the apostles to proclaim to the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Lk. 24:44-49).

Peter then extensively warned them after his message and urged them to be saved (Acts 2:40). Because the Spirit has chosen only to give us a brief summary of this lengthy exhortation after Peter’s message, we again note that God has not given us an exhaustive record of the witness that these people received on this occasion.

Three thousand people from among his hearers joyfully received his message and were baptized (Acts 2:41). This vast multitude of people was genuinely saved not by hearing just “a simple gospel message” that only told them that Jesus is God and that He died for their sins—they actually received a very lengthy witness that climaxed with an emphatic proclamation of Jesus as the God-resurrected and God-exalted Christ (Acts 2:36)!

What Being a Witness of Christ Does Not Mean

Although we do learn many things from this premier message about what being a witness of Christ entails, the inspired record of Peter’s first witnessing of Christ in Jerusalem (Acts 2) also teaches us many key truths about what being a witness of Christ does not mean:

  1. Being a witness of Christ does not mean that we should necessarily give people as short and simple a message as possible. These people heard a four-part vast testimony (Acts 2:11; 2:14-21; 2:22-36; 2:38-40) that plainly declared to them many profound truths (cf. Acts 2:11, 33, 36, 38), including truth about the day of the Lord (Acts 2:16-21) that Bible interpreters even today have difficulty fully understanding and explaining.
  2. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly just about Jesus Himself. In fact, Peter bore vital testimony many times in his message to what God the Father did in relation to Jesus (Acts 2:22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36).
  3. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about the Crucifixion of Jesus. Although Peter, naturally, did testify of the Crucifixion (Acts 2:23), he emphasized the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ far more than he did the Crucifixion (Acts 2:24-36).
  4. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about Jesus as God. Although what Peter preached did testify to the deity of Jesus, he also testified that Jesus was the Christ whom God approved (Acts 2:22), worked through (Acts 2:22), raised (Acts 2:24, 32), and exalted (Acts 2:33, 36).
  5. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about Jesus as Savior. Peter did testify to that truth, but he climaxed his message with a declaration of Jesus as the God-exalted Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), which statement is not reducible to testimony merely about Jesus as Savior.
  6. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about believing on Jesus. Peter emphatically demanded that his hearers also repent (Acts 2:38).
  7. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about getting saved. Although Peter did provide testimony to them about being saved (Acts 2:21) and did urge them to be saved (Acts 2:40), he also demanded that they be baptized (Acts 2:38).

Conclusion

The inspired record of Peter’s testimony of Christ in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 2 provides us with vital instruction about being a witness of Christ. Let us all profit fully from this glorious passage!

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Evangelism, Exposition, Preaching
 permalink

Beware This “News Report” Approach to Using John 11 in Evangelism!

February 9, 2015

This morning, I used a creative approach with some other believers to help them understand better how many believers have not rightly understood why Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead the way that He did. I believe that a vast number of believers need to understand this key point and then use that understanding to adjust in a very important way their use of John 11 in evangelizing people.

An Imaginary News Report of Jesus’ Raising Lazarus from the Dead

Imagine that a news crew from a leading TV network is able to go back in time to videotape one key Bible event, and they choose when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. This crew has the ability to record what takes place without any of the people even seeing that they are present.

As they watch Jesus and others coming to the tomb, they choose to begin recording only at the exact moment when He actually commands Lazarus to come forth. Getting what they want on tape, they return to the present to share their highly selective eyewitness account with the world.

On a prime time news program, they present the stunning video, which instantly creates a worldwide sensation. As teams of news reporters and analysts all around the world go back and forth discussing the remarkable footage, leading news anchors here in the US carry on a torrid debate about what the world should make of this miraculous event.

The Internet explodes with a never-before-seen deluge of discussion on social media. Many bloggers chime in with their take on what significance the world should attach to seeing Jesus do something that no one else had ever been recorded doing—raising a person back to life who had been dead for four days!

Everywhere, people fiercely dispute why Jesus did what He did the way that He did it and what His doing so reveals about who He was. An endless stream of world leaders, political and religious, gives their opinions on whether they believe that the video proves that Jesus was God.

All too often, many Christians have evangelized people by using the account of Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead in a very similar way to what I concocted in this hypothetical story. By focusing on a very small portion of the Bible record about this event, they have in many cases not given people a right understanding of why Jesus raised Lazarus the way that He did and what His doing so shows about who He was.

The Foreground Significance of Jesus’ Raising Lazarus the Way That He Did

An examination of the Holy Spirit’s inspired report of what happened shows clearly how this has been the case. When John relates to us what happened immediately before Jesus commanded Lazarus to come out of the grave, he says,

Joh 11:38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Only after relating these events does John tell us the very selective part that the fictitious news story I gave above provided:

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Had the Spirit only inspired John to write verses 43-44 after he had given enough preceding material to give the basic information about the setting of this event, the news report would have been a more valid representation of what took place on this occasion. John, however, provided vital information in the verses immediately preceding verses 43 and 44 that the news report failed to provide.

Right before Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth, John says that Jesus lifted up His eyes and talked aloud with God the Father (John 11:41). In this conversation, Jesus thanked the Father for hearing Him and for His always hearing Him. These statements show that Jesus communicated that He had prayed to the Father just before His raising Lazarus from the dead and that the Father had heard His prayer, just as He always had done before this event!

Moreover, John then recorded that Jesus then remarked to the Father, “But because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 11:42). Here John reports from the mouth of Jesus Himself what is the key to understanding why Jesus raised Lazarus the way that He did—He wanted the people to believe the vital truth that the Father had sent Him!

Saying this, Jesus told all those who were present on that occasion that the foreground significance of His raising Lazarus the way that He did was that people would believe that God the Father had sent Him! What He Himself said prior to what He was about to do thus made known that His intent through this miraculous event did not have proving His own deity as its foremost significance.

Yes, what He did testified to His deity but that clearly was not the sum total of what this event testified about Him. In fact, by Jesus’ own statement that John relates, we know that His own deity was not even the foremost truth to which His raising Lazarus the way that He did gave witness to His original audience.

How We Must Use John 11 Properly in Evangelism

As we have seen, this conversation between Jesus and the Father about His hearing Jesus’ prayer was a vital facet of this miracle that the news report completely left out. What Jesus testified about His purpose for doing this miracle the way that He did it is also a vital facet of this event that many, many believers do not account for when they use this account to witness to people.

In using John 11 in evangelism, we must not use this “news report” approach to sharing this glorious event with lost people. We must rather faithfully tell them that Jesus raised Lazarus the way that He did so that they will believe that the Father sent Him!

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Evangelism, Exhortation, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Beware “Theological Reductionism” that Overemphasizes the Deity of Jesus!

February 3, 2015

Is overemphasizing the deity of Jesus even possible? Mark 1:1-3 is a crucial passage for showing that such overemphasis is not only possible, but also is very widespread and has negatively affected the theological understanding of many believers.

The Proper Approach to Interpreting Mark 1:1

The Gospel of Mark begins with vital teaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). This theologically pregnant statement juxtaposes many key theological terms: “gospel,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “the Son of God.”

Self-evidently, a right handling of this text is of preeminent importance. How then should we approach interpreting what Mark affirms here?

The Holy Spirit answers that question by how He has inspired what immediately follows in the passage: “As it is written in the prophets …” (Mark 1:2a). To interpret Mark 1:1 properly, we must relate it properly to how the Spirit has signified that Mark 1:1 is to be understood through our attention to previous biblical teaching.

What Does Mark 1:2-3 Itself Teach Us?

Before we can understand how Mark 1:1 relates properly with Mark 1:2-3, we must examine what Mark 1:2-3 teaches us itself. Mark 1:2-3 directs our attention to teaching found elsewhere in Scripture:

Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

A careful analysis of verse 2 reveals that this biblical citation speaks of three distinct persons:

(1) the Speaker of the statement (“I,” “my”);

(2) the one who is sent by the Speaker as His messenger and who will prepare the way of another Person to whom the Speaker addresses the statement;

(3) the One Whom the Speaker addresses the statement to and Whose face the Speaker will send His messenger before and Whose way the messenger will prepare before Him (the third Person spoken of in the passage who is the referent of both occurrences of the pronoun “thy” in this verse).

The Speaker is God the Father, the one whom He sends as His messenger is John the Baptist (cf. especially 1:4-6), and the third Person in the passage is Jesus (Mark 1:7ff.).

Because Mark 1:3 informs us that the messenger would proclaim that the One whose way he would prepare (Mark 1:2) is the Lord, interpreters rightly understand that the passage is affirming the deity of Jesus. Is this affirmation of His deity, however, the only essential teaching of the passage about the gospel of Jesus Christ?

What Mark 1:1 Signifies Based on Its Relation to Mark 1:2-3

Many interpreters hold that the phrase “the Son of God” at its essence signifies Jesus’ deity in this passage and support this understanding by noting how that phrase is used elsewhere and by how 1:3 speaks of Him as the Lord whose way the messenger would prepare. Arguing in this way, they affirm that the essential truth about the gospel that Mark is stressing here is that Jesus Christ is deity Himself.

All too often, as they handle the passage in this way, however, they lose sight of another essential truth that the passage plainly affirms about Jesus before it speaks of Him as the Lord—Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a distinct Person from the Father who sent His messenger before Him to prepare His way and His paths! Yes, this passage affirms the full deity of Jesus Christ, but what it teaches about His deity is not the only essential truth that this passage provides us about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Discussion

When interpreters emphasize one truth that a passage teaches to such an extent that they obscure or minimize without biblical warrant other key truths that the passage also teaches, they engage in what I call “theological reductionism.” Such reductionism, when it is repeatedly done, easily leads to widespread neglect of key biblical teaching and the mishandling of key passages of Scripture.

Yes, Mark 1:1-3 affirms the deity of Jesus Christ as the Lord. No, the passage does not teach that Jesus Christ as the Son of the God means only that Jesus is God Himself.

Rather, through inspiring Mark 1:2-3 as the essential explanation of the meaning that He intends for us to understand about the gospel significance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Holy Spirit teaches us to hold that “the Son of God” here denotes both His deity and His being a distinct person from God the Father. To emphasize the former at the expense of the latter is to engage in theological reductionism.

Moreover, the passage teaches us that the Father sent His messenger to prepare the way for the coming of Jesus to people as the Lord. The emphasis on the preparatory ministry of the messenger shows us that what would take place in Jesus’ life as the Lord was not a self-determined expression of and exercise of His own deity; Jesus came as the Lord whose paths His Father directed and determined.

Conclusion

Mark 1:1-3 teaches that a right understanding of the gospel significance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God includes both His deity and His distinction in person from God the Father. It also teaches us that another key truth about the gospel significance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is that the Father prepared His way to come to people as the Lord.

We must take care not to reduce the vital theological teaching of this passage about the gospel in such a way that we communicate that the gospel at its essence is reducible to merely an affirmation of and an expression of the deity of Jesus Christ. To furnish people with a proper understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we must communicate to them not only the deity of Jesus but also both His distinction in person from God the Father and the Father’s essential working in the life of Jesus.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Exposition, Gospel, Theology
 permalink

Are You Rightly Receiving the Bible in Your Life?

January 29, 2015

Paul ends Second Timothy 3 with a profound statement that is rightly stressed for what it teaches about the inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). An examination of that statement in its surrounding context provides crucial understanding that every believer needs to have in order that he would be rightly receiving the Bible in his life.

Scripture Makes People Wise unto Salvation

Paul taught Timothy that the holy Scriptures were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith that is in Jesus Christ:

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This statement shows that genuine salvation results in a person’s life from his contact with the Bible only if he allows it to impart to him the wisdom that he lacks. Specifically, he must accept God’s wisdom that Scripture reveals to him by believing what the Scripture presents to him about Jesus Christ.

People who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ through the ministry of the Bible that they receive are people who reject divine wisdom that is essential for salvation. Until a person repents of such rejection, he will never rightly receive the Bible in his life.

Scripture Profits Believers unto All Good Works

When a person repents toward God and believes in Jesus Christ through rightly receiving the Scripture in his life, he is saved. After his salvation, God intends for him to continue rightly receiving the Bible in his life:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Here Paul taught Timothy that as a believer in Jesus Christ, he was to receive profit from all Scripture such that it all would perfect him as a man of God. Paul then expanded on how Scripture was to perfect Timothy as a man of God by telling him that through his rightly receiving all Scripture in his life, Timothy would be thoroughly furnished for all good works.

By concluding this teaching as he did, Paul expressed that God’s intent for providing the entirety of the Bible to every believer was so that he would be fully equipped to do all the good works that God wants him to do! Saying this, Paul taught the profound truth that a believer’s doing all the good works that God intends for him to do is the essential outcome that must result from his contact with all Scripture.

When a believer is not doing all the good works in his life that God wants him to do, he shows that he is not rightly receiving the Bible in his life. He must repent and believe what Scripture teaches him about all the good works that he is to do.

Conclusion

We must all assess ourselves with all diligence to see if we are rightly receiving the Bible in our lives. To whatever extent we are failing to do all the good works that God wants us to do, we are not rightly receiving the Bible in our lives.

Are you rightly receiving the Bible in your life?

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

How James 4 Illumines Today’s Music Wars and How to End Them Properly

January 3, 2015

In some spirited online discussions that I have observed between evangelicals and fundamentalists concerning their differences about music that is acceptable for worship, evangelicals have often asserted that the fundamentalists are the root cause of the problems and disunity in worship that exist among Christians today. Of course, I categorically reject that assertion.

In support of my rejection of that assertion, I recently have seen that James 4 illumines key aspects of today’s music wars. The chapter also illumines how to end the music wars properly.

James 4:1-10

James first sets forth the reality of wars and fightings among God’s people and exposes the root cause of such problems—Christians who are seeking their own lustful pleasures and thereby creating strife and division (James 4:1-3).

Application: Concerning differences about music that should be used for Christian worship, believers who strive for the acceptability of music that appeals to fleshly lusts are the ones who are responsible for creating the music wars among God’s people.

James then challenges those believers who are causing strife— through seeking to satisfy their fleshly lusts— about their adulterously seeking friendship with the world (James 4:4-5).

Application: In the debates about what music is appropriate for Christian worship, believers who promote affinity to the world by setting forth as acceptable for worship music that the world has specifically created to promote fleshly lusts are the ones who are causing the strife and division among God’s people concerning worship music.

James further rebukes believers who cause strife for their arrogant lack of submission to God and their not resisting the devil. In effect, he counsels them that their seeking to fulfill their lusts by their friendship with the world is a manifestation of their proud resistance to God and failure to resist the devil (James 4:6-7).

Application: Concerning the disputes about worship music, believers who advocate as acceptable for worship music that the world created to appeal to fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences upon its creators and performers are the ones who are the root cause of today’s music wars.

James challenges believers who are causing wars and fightings among God’s people to humbly draw near to God and deal properly with their sins (James 4:7-10).

Application: Concerning the current battles about music that is acceptable for worship, believers who promote the use of music that was created by the world to feed fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences are the ones who must change if the music wars among God’s people today are to be resolved properly.

James 4:11-12

James next warns believers not to judge one another by speaking evil of one another (James 4:11-12). It is vital to note that the flow of thought in the chapter shows that James does not have in view speech that rightly assesses and confronts believers who through their lustful and adulterous friendship with the world are proudly resistant to God and failing to resist the devil.

Application: Those who advocate for the use of contemporary worship music often charge those who do not with judging them unjustly by what they say about the use of contemporary worship music. Such a charge is invalid because it is right to assess as wrong the use of music created by the world that feeds fleshly lusts and that is sourced in evil supernatural influences upon musicians.

James 4:13-17

James concludes the chapter by rebuking believers who arrogantly boast about what they are going to do in the future (James 4:13-16). He warns them that failure to do what one knows to be right is sinful (James 4:17).

Application: Some evangelical promoters of contemporary worship arrogantly speak assuredly of the future virtually complete triumph of contemporary worship among the people of God. Many of these people also profess that music choices are strictly about personal preferences and yet speak disdainfully of those who reject contemporary worship, which puts them in violation of what they know is right to do about how believers are to handle differences about things that they believe are disputable things.

Conclusion

If today’s music wars are to be ended properly, all believers must carefully and thoroughly examine themselves in light of how James 4 illumines these wars and fightings among God’s people concerning worship music. Through such an examination and a proper response to it, we can resolve these problems and the disunity among God’s people resulting from them.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

A Prophet, A Minstrel, and Resolving Today’s Worship Wars

December 20, 2014

To resolve today’s worship wars properly, all parties involved must profit fully from all divine revelation about music. To that end, this post examines a noteworthy passage about a prophet, a minstrel, and divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

Elisha’s Commitment to Separation from Those Who Had Compromised True Worship of the Lord

Second Kings begins by relating the miraculous end of Elijah’s prophetic ministry and the miraculous beginning of Elisha’s prophetic ministry (2 Kings 1-2). During the subsequent evil reign of king Jehoram over Israel (cf. 2 Kings 3:1-3), king Jehoram went with Jehoshaphat king of Judah and the king of Edom to inquire of the Lord through Elisha because Jehoshaphat knew that “the word of the Lord [was] with him [Elisha]” (2 Kings 3:7-12).

In this encounter with these three kings, Elisha initially rebuked Jehoram by protesting his seeking him out: “What have I to do with thee?” (2 Kings 3:13a). Elisha thereby made clear that he did not want to have contact with this evil king. He then instructed him to go instead and consult with the prophets of his parents (2 Kings 3:13b).

When Jehoram persisted (2 Kings 3:13c), Elisha testified to the all-important reality that he served in the presence of the living God (“As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand” [2 Kings 3:14a]). He then went so far as to say to Jehoram that he would not even have had anything to do with him had Jehoshaphat not been with him (2 Kings 3:14b).

These statements by Elisha attest to his commitment to separation from evil leaders who perpetuated horrifically compromised worship of the Lord (2 Kings 3:3). By divine design, we must therefore keep this reality in mind when we examine what Elisha did next in this encounter.

Elisha’s Request for a Minstrel to Play for Him and His Subsequent Prophesying

After he had rebuked Jehoram for seeking prophetic ministry from him, Elisha asked that a minstrel be brought to him (2 Kings 3:15a). When the minstrel played for him, “the hand of the Lord came upon him” (2 Kings 3:15b).

Elisha then prophesied what the Lord gave him to reveal on this occasion (2 Kings 3:16-19). The inspired writer of the book then records that what Elisha had prophesied took place the next morning (2 Kings 3:20).

Discussion

Why did Elisha request this musical ministry prior to his prophesying? Why did the Holy Spirit record this part of the encounter and what profit are we supposed to derive from it?

To understand the value of this revelation properly, we must first note that this passage does not say anything about the minstrel’s singing words to Elisha on this occasion. By divine design, this passage focuses our attention, therefore, on what resulted at this time from the playing of instrumental music.

Second, we must recognize that Elisha had no ability to bring about any divine response to the instrumental musical ministry that he requested and received. Because the Spirit has recorded that God did respond to that instrumental music, we learn that this passage is inspired revelation about divine attentiveness to and approbation of the instrumental music that Elisha received on this occasion!

Third, given Elisha’s intense commitment to separation from compromised worshipers of the Lord, the flow of thought in the passage points us to the truth of divine attention to and approbation of instrumental music ministered by a musician who is not a compromising worshiper of the Lord. By implication, we learn that both Elisha and God would have rejected instrumental music proffered by an ungodly instrumental musician (cf. Amos 5:23).

Conclusion

In a previous post, I treated a passage in Amos 5 that plainly teaches that God pays attention to the instrumental music that people use to worship Him. The account of Elisha, the minstrel’s playing, and God’s response to that playing similarly reveals divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

In discussions about issues concerning worship music, we must account properly for this vital biblical truth—God is not merely concerned with the words that are sung to Him; He also pays attention to the instrumental music that is used. In fact, through how the Spirit has chosen to inspire the revelation given to us in 2 Kings 3:15, we must accept the truth that He pays attention to and responds to instrumental music that is not accompanied by words!

Furthermore, the emphasis in the passage on Elisha’s separation from ungodly worshipers of the Lord directs us to scrutinize carefully the instrumental music that we use in divine worship and to reject instrumental music sourced in the evil activities of evil people, including people who profess to worship the Lord but compromise His worship. Attempts to resolve today’s worship wars that do not account for the truths revealed in 2 Kings 3, Amos 5, and other related passages will necessarily fail to resolve the issues involved properly.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

God Does Pay Attention to the Instrumental Music Used to Worship Him!

December 9, 2014

Every time that I read Amos 5, I am struck by what God says at the end of the passage concerning the instrumental music that His people offer to Him in their worship. Although I am still working on understanding the full significance of this passage for the debates about worship music in our day, I am convinced that it has great relevance to those issues.

Amos 5 and Divine Attentiveness to Instrumental Music

Because of the extreme offensiveness of His people’s religious hypocrisy, God made known that He intensely detested their ungodly worship. Tellingly, He said that He would not accept the things that they would offer Him:

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

 23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

 24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Remarkably, God rebuked His people by saying that He hated the special occasions of divine worship that He Himself had ordained for them!

It is noteworthy that God specifies here that He commanded them to take away the noise of their songs from Him and made known that He would not listen to the instrumental music that they would offer up to Him in their hypocritical worship. By direct and necessary implication, verse 23 reveals that God listens intently to the instrumental music that His people use in their worshiping Him and any music that is part of divine worship must be music that is a delight to Him.

Conclusion

Contrary to the notions that some believers seem to have, this passage makes clear that believers cannot legitimately hold that God only cares about the words that are sung to Him and doesn’t pay attention to the instrumental music that is used to worship Him. God has made known plainly in Amos 5:23 (and in other passages) that He does pay attention to the instrumental music used to worship Him!

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink